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?

Tv is so fickle and fake. I don't watch it. You're too good to be on the BBC.

Can you sue them
Unless you signed away your copyright to them

The BBC is now gutter tier! Has been for the last 10-20 years, in terms of output. Truth is it has been all along in terms of morality within the organisation. I would take this a lot further, but its up to you. Just know that you are above the cesspit of rot and filth that is the BBC. The quicker they get rid ofcthe licence fee the better.

I’d be taking this further just on principle.

I have been cut from tv shows a few times so was reading your post thinking I know it sucks… but to have your segment refilmed and fronted by someone else is atrocious!! YANBU at all. I assume it was a production company for the BBC but that doesn’t make it any better.

Yeah because the BBC’s “strict rules” have been so very effective in preventing their employees from abusing their positions in the past. Such paragons of virtue 🙄

Think very hard about how they could have obtained it after having filmed OP saying it.

That's absolutely disgusting behaviour from the BBC. You should demand payment. Write to the papers. I would. Those bastards.

It could be a copyright issue if it was the exact same words, in order, etc after you were filmed.
Legal advice regarding recourse and rights would be an avenue to check.

No script is needed. They want people to speak spontaneously, from their own knowledge.

The only documentaries that Zara has done has focused on things that she personally has been affected by like revenge porn, rape culture (after being threatened with rape) and eating disorders, they were all episodes of the same show.

Only 1 of the 20+ other programmes she's in is also a documentary but she wasn't presenting it, it was just an interview for Panorama and again it was something she was affected by.

Did you actually read the OP?

Completely agree.

What a load of rubbish

That's astonishing op, Of course you're right to be hurt and angry. The ageism, the sexism,the lies, and wasting your time.

Wondering if you have any grounds to sue op?

OP says the other presenter used her exact words. That being the case, they’ve stolen her intellectual property.

If you go online and dig a bit, you’ll find that the BBC has form for this kind of thing.

Yes they are wrong.

Reshoots don’t have to be expensive - there are producer-directors or even assistant producers / researchers who can self-shoot. They may be using in-house (free) camera kit. They may be located close to the filming location. The replacement expert may have been a member of the team. It could potentially be done at the cost of a hire car and a couple of hours of their time.

Also, it may not be that they travelled back specially. They may have planned more than one filming day in the area and were able to squeeze this quick reshoot in.

Its funny a lot of posters are making assumptions of the type of factual programme, but we dont actually have confirmation on that, or their budget.

It's surprising there are still those who defend them. It's a corrupt institution, who covered up and gave air to actual paedophiles, rapists, abusers and misogynists.

Yet a little bit of script-stealing is definitely a step too far for them, because... Their famous 'integrity' and 'strict rules'. Right.

This is what will have happened. There is no way any producer would ask a stand in to learn words that a pundit has already said, and then repeat them verbatim. For one thing they'd be there all day doing retakes if the stand in got a word wrong . And secondly, rehearsed stuff always sounds awful in this context; completely unnatural. This is why the OP will have been dropped in the first place; nothing to do with age or looks because, especially for local history segments, that's exactly the demographic of most experts usually.

So it won't be word for word at all. It'll be similar; because there's a limit to what you can say about a local history place in the short time allocated.

But a complete copy, word for word? Would never happen.

Source; I was a BBC documentary, News and Current Affairs producer of 20 years.

@LittleBigHead I've been an academic for hire on BBC radio and they always pay me! Not much but I do get appearance fees.

I've also been dropped at the last nine minute, asked then swapped for a more famous contributor - that's how it goes. But I do find OPs story surprising - it's very poor ethics. If it really was word for word, I'd ask for a fee for the research and time.

Duh!

That’s heartbreaking, genuinely OP. I’m sorry.

Anyone using ‘one of the team’ as a replacement expert isn’t a proper production. It’s completely inappropriate and would definitely fall foul of BBC ethical guidelines.

Self-shooters still have to be paid, albeit not as much as camera ops, and in-house kit is still chargeable against the budget.

It’s not megabucks, but it’s still (conservatively) a few hundred pounds - an expense no production will willingly bear unless it was essential.

Which either means the production is completely awful, run by idiots and charlatans (definitely possible) or the initial contribution must have been unusable for some reason - that could have been over-rehearsal but it also could have been a technical fault, lost rushes, poor sound etc.

The timelines described where the OP was contacted and filmed within days, then called to say it wasn’t being used within a week doesn’t scream premium factual, so budget will have been a consideration.

I am assuming, of course, but on a Countryfile / Coast type thing. the attractiveness of the contributor wouldn’t necessitate a reshoot.

Haha completely agree! Though we don’t know if they were pickups (could be multiple filming days in same location).
Saw your reply to OP - you sound like a wonderful Producer that really cares for their contribs, we need more like you.

Also I agree - it is unlikely to be about looks / age. The BBC (and many other channels) monitor diversity, and actively encourage on-screen and off-screen diversity. We have to submit diversity reports for each production.