To be hurt and annoyed at being dropped by the BBC?

[Ladyof2025]

BBC contacted me asking me to speak on camera about an aspect of local history I happen to know a bit about. I agreed and spent the next few days brushing up on the facts and then writing and rewriting a script and reading it out loud again and again until I knew it by heart and could speak confidently to camera as though I'd never said it before.

I do not have a pretty face, and am in my 60s and rather podgy, but I went to the trouble of going through my wardrobe for the perfect outfit that flattered my podginess, and had my hair cut specially and put on some make up, so I could be the best possible version of me that I could.

The production team visited, took me to the site and filmed me speaking. I did it smoothly and confidently and was glad that I had put in all the rehearsal so I came across as knowledgeable, professional and confident of my material. They said my performance was perfect, thanked me profusely and left.

After about a week they rang me to say that due to time and space issues the section of the programme that featured my input had been dropped. I felt absolutely gutted, not because I want to see myself on TV but because I had used up a lot of my valuable free time for several days preparing and rehearsing for it (for no fee I should add).

A few months later the programme I was dropped from came on TV and to my utter astonishment an attractive, slim young lady appeared, at the same site I was filmed at, and she spoke the exact words I had written and rehearsed! I nearly fell off my chair - the absolute bloody cheek of dropping ME but stealing the script that I had written. Thinking about it, I realised that they wanted my expert input, but not my saggy face or ample figure.

AIBU to be hurt and angry?

It was 2019. The last time I did any TV work was in 2021, and it was really stressful with social distancing, face covers, changing clothes to film different scenes,and finding out the area I'd driven to was going into a mini lockdown at 6pm that evening so we all had to get a shuffle on. Again, I earned about 50% more than I do in my day job, but it was a right faff.

Sure, I know budgets are tight and can vary as well from production to production. I know the media often works last minute. I can understand that. I've freely given email interviews to newspapers, etc, as I knew the person at the other end was under time pressure. But yes, things do need improving. People generally want to help, but they don't want their good nature abused either. And, if someone is not familiar with the industry, the cut can be deeper. That's why at least a kind email is important.

Thanks. Payment seems to have improved, so that's good. Filming during COVID sounds like a nightmare though.

The last time I did television was in 2014 or so, although I still do radio from time to time and newspaper/magazine commentary. I even used to freelance myself...wrote magazine articles which used to pay rather well, but the bottom fell out big time. Not as much demand for the longer piece anymore...all part of National Geographic getting Disneyfied.

Actually, I must correct myself - it was 2020, very late autumn 2020. The program was then aired 12 months later in 2021. I don't know how I got that wrong. Thankfully the program in question did not require me to be filmed with anyone else, so at least I wasn't shown booming at someone from two meters away.

I think it’s quite clear @Producethis is a producer.

and I’m not sure how you’re managing to argue the toss about this. she isn’t denying it doesn’t happen all the time for a myriad of reasons.

you have no idea what the OP might find more comforting any more than anyone else.

and being open and transparent with contributors is
a good place to start.

Really hope you contact them and ask for an explanation.

doesnt sound real unless you are a contestant the BBC pays you. 🙄

This being the case, it seems to me they are clearly in the wrong, but not really for dropping your interview.

The fact is that many people are not great at coming across on camera. It's not even mainly down to looks, and it's not necessarily to do with things like lack of confidence. Some people just don't have an effective television manner. Some people might be perfectly nice looking but look weird on t v(and the opposite is also true.) These aren't things to take personally.

And you haven't mentioned if you signed a release for use of your material? If so, that means they could use the information separate from your interview, if that makes sense.

However - if it's your own original research, that should have been acknowledged, if not by the person they filmed speaking instead, than it should have been noted in the credits. The thing about original material is that although you can sign away the right of use, you can't sign away attribution - others can't say they created the material, nor change it and then attribute it to you without noting the change.

So that is what I would complain to them very clearly about - they used your original research without proper attribution. And really the nicest most respectful approach IMO would be to just have the presenter say something like, "Local historian Jane Doe has recently found that Lord Muck was also a frequent visitor to this home.."

As a general comment, I find documentary and historical programs are becoming more and more fake, I rarely watch them these days because it all seems to be cheap re-enactments, very light on information.

If they didn’t use your actual words then with respect you are being a bit over sensitive. They will have sent several local experts the exact same questions so it’s not surprising in that case that her answers were the same content. If the names out there were available to be found then others may well have found them too if they are also interested in the same topic, and facts are not proprietary - you don’t own historical information. As to the names being in the same order - there will be a right way that a list of names sound. Often with historical names this is unconsciously chronological. You wouldn’t order “chips and fish” or “cake and tea”. Equally if you were going to say a house had been stayed in by Elizabeth I and Marilyn Monroe, you’d likely put them in that order as Elizabeth would have been there first?

Maybe not every single word was the same but she mentioned a string of details that I had said in my speech that the programme makers did not know.
Specifically, I named some people (ie historical figures) who I had discovered were associated with the house;

One big doco I was involved with as an academic was fascinating in the way they used my words & research. A producer contacted me out of the blue about some research I was doing, and we had a couple of long telephone conversations.

I didn't hear anything until about 6 months later, when he'd got the film commissioned by the BBC. We had another conversation and I had my own comments & ideas repeated back to me! Not verbatim of course.

But I was very impressed at the way he'd absorbed and processed the heaps of information I'd given him, to get to the nub of the story he wanted to tell. Then he sent me the narrator's script (the anchor of the film was a famous celebrity whom I never met although it looks like we did!), and we set a day for filming. I was taught on the spot a really great technique for doing this sort of thing - he would ask me a question, and I'd repeat it as a statement and then elaborate. It keeps your piece to camera fresh. In the final edit his question disappeared, so it looked like my spontaneous speech. There was a fair bit of me in the final edit, which means I've only ever watched the whole thing once, through half-closed eyes.

It was a fascinating insight into the speed and intelligence of people who make documentaries & non-fiction programmes. They really have admirable skills in absorbing interesting research from us eggheads & then getting the best out of it for a general public audience.

Utterly bizarre that you are getting a hard time on this thread. I’m really sorry. I am appalled by this and would definitely seek advice. It’s the definition of plagiarism.

I'd email the producer & say that you realise now that you got that research wrong & if they're ever going to consider using the information in your interview it would need revising.
Utter bastards doing that to you

All of this.

I’d add that the transience means people fear being branded a troublemaker or ‘not a team player’ if they call out bad behaviour.

Reputation is everything to a freelancer. All the usual sexist bullshit women face (eg ‘assertive’ v ‘bossy’) is exacerbated and it leaves people feeling unable to speak up.

That is not in any way to deny that dealing with contributors should be done with care.

As well as specialist factual shows, I make sensitive access docs, and my role includes writing duty of care protocols - basically how contributors should be looked after throughout the process, how to contact them, when they should be contacted in the time around transmission etc.

Specialist factual contribs don’t require this level of detail, but at the very least, there should be a list of all contribs, including contact info, and they should be contacted ahead of TX to be told about the show by whoever is still there.

But for all the reasons you have so clearly explained @PinkArt , this doesn’t always happen - or is done by someone junior or non-editorial who doesn’t have the nuanced understanding of why the contribution was dropped.

To be honest, the culture in tv needs a drastic overhaul - currently around 70% of freelancers are unemployed. The Film & TV Charity have released their latest ‘Looking Glass’ survey on mental health and the stats are frightening.

None of that is to excuse how @Ladyof2025 was treated. Whatever happened and whatever the reasons, she deserved the respect of being given a proper explanation before the show aired.

Thanks!

That’s entirely untrue.

Very few documentary contributors are paid beyond disruption expenses. This is, imo, a good thing - because the alternative is that vulnerable people may agree to do a show that otherwise they wouldn’t, because they need the money.

Some experts get a small fee but quite often people try to find someone free.

I don’t agree with people working for free, in general, but there can be ways it works - like for example it’s part of their expected role as a university professor etc so they are paid by the institution to be there.

Presenters, of course, get paid.

For the PP talking about using an agent etc - as a presenter that would be the norm, but I’m not sure I’ve ever dealt with an agent for a talking head in a doc. To be honest, knowing the fee we had in the budget is unlikely to appease an agent (couple of hundred max), any mention of an agent would have us back to the list of experts.

People keep saying this, but not always.

In the last couple of weeks (I'm not going to be more specific), I filmed with a production company making a prime time BBC1 show for 3 hours. I was not paid, although I got coffee, lunch and they offered me expenses for my train fare.

Why did I do it for free? Well because in my case the exposure is well worth it. I am freelance/self-employed too, and when the programme goes out I will be name checked. So if it was a cooking show (it wasn't), and I was a freelance private chef, the voiceover will say "Snoozing Fox, a freelance chef from Bristol". Given that my name is unusual, this is a free primetime ad for me on the beeb, watched by just the sort of people who are my customers. Then I can also put on my website "as seen on BBC X Programme".

We filmed the same piece about 4 times, from various angles and wide shots, close ups etc. I have also worked as an extra on TV/film in the past and these things do take forever although the smaller TV crew make things a lot more relaxed and quicker. Extras get paid a pittance too, often it's not even minimum wage. Yet there are thousands of people who want to do it, because it's fun (usually).

As per usual though on MN there are lots of people who know exactly how "these things" work despite never having been on a TV or film set either in front of the camera or behind the scenes.

I expect this was because of your delivery OP. They normally want people to talk naturally for this kind of thing, not recite a pre-written script.

I think some people just don't come over well on TV, sorry. For example, my son was asked to film something for BBC breakfast where he had to walk into a room and sit down and he forgot how to walk. It was very funny! Instead of swinging his arms naturally, he clamped his hands to his legs so his legs and shoulders moved together at the same time. The producer said stuff like that happens all the time and had to show him how to walk.

In your case, it sounds more like they used some of the information you provided, but did they steal the actual script you had written? Are the words used exactly the same?

Wow!! I’d be soooo fuming and hurt. If you have the producers details I’d be sending him an email. Also register as self employed for extra appearances on TV, and send him an invoice ha

I can believe that but bear in mind they told her the entire segment had been cut. It would have been courteous to have thanked her for the information and warned her in advance that their own presenter was going to deliver it on screen.

I think that OP needs to at least contact the producers to make this point. Just for the apology really. She can open by saying how much she enjoyed the show, doesn’t have to be a rant.

I wouldn't trust the BBC with anything. Even their news is biased and full of misinformation.

I am so sorry this happened. Shame on the BBC

Well done OP for saying yes to the filming. I was once asked to do something similar and was too chicken. And well done for painstaking research that discovered new historical info without having the resources of an academic institution. I imagine you must have justifiably felt proud of that achievement and it probably feels like this was diminished and trampled on by the TV crew.

So, YANBU to feel hurt and angry, though there are many possible reasons your segment was dropped and delivered by someone else. I'd be wary of assuming it was because you were over rehearsed. If so, surely they'd have invested a few more mins in seeing if you could do at least a couple more takes a bit more naturally, with a bit of coaching?

You said you didn't want to get into discussion by email with them of why you were dropped, so could you focus just on your dismay that your original research and wider input to the program was not credited? To me, this seems the most problematic element. Perhaps also check carefully what was said to ensure it didn't present a misleading impression of this info being generally available rather than newly discovered. If so, I 'd pick them up on this too.

Are you part of any local history organisation where others might have dealt with similar and could advise?

With you Op - as are the overwhelming decent majority - ignore the nasty thoughtless posts on here. I think they needed to treat you with more respect and should have handled the whole thing better but if you don’t tell them they will do this to others -people don’t need to treat each other so badly..your disappointment is justified and totally natural - this is all on them

Well, to be fair, your delivery may not have suited their style and so they are under no obligation to use that piece of film. However, you should be credited and paid for your script. That is not unreasonable.

It may be that your work is worth £75-100 and it's the principle of the thing. The producer should not be allowed to get away with stealing your intellectual property.

Please register your complaint with the producer. Copy in everyone else associated with the program and their boss.

Let us know how you get on.

OP,

I've read all your posts, if not everybody else's. I'm really sorry this happened to you, it must feel rubbish.

I think it's worth a complaint. However, it's probably not illegal, even if they used your words. I'm sure you must have signed a release form. This will have included waiving all rights to material you give them, which includes your insights. Somewhere on the small print you probably signed that they could use 'any or part of' what they have filmed of you, but are not obliged to used all, any particular part, or any' of what they filmed with you. There is often a phrase about requiring no further attribution to you. The wording may be different but it will be there, because obviously filmers need to film more than they might need, and grab different versions, and they don't know what will work until the final edit, and that can't be going back for whole new permissions once they understand the Final Cut.

I suspect, therefore, they are legally within their rights to use your material without attribution.

That doesn't mean they haven't played a bit dirty or lacked transparency with you, which considering it's the bbc, who should have some duty toward and empathy for the public, is a bad thing. It is possible there is also an again issue here, which is not about you not being attractive, it's about the world being unfair. And the BBC has been accused of agism towards women many times.

So I would definitely complain. I suppose there are three issues to poke at :

1. Was this agism? How often is the bbc doing this?
2. Why lie and say there wasn't space for my take, when clearly there is, as you made a duplicate take of sane length with one of your crew?
3. While legally, it might be just about acceptable in the release, it would be nice to be credited and thanked for your insights. How often is the bbc putting other people's insights into the mouths of crew people without giving any acknowledgement?