It’s an infuriating feeling to know you’ve been done over, and your hard work nabbed by other journalists. That’s what has happened to me, when my Streetfighters work caught the eye of a producer at the BBC.
In December I was contacted by a researcher on BBC One’s One Show. She told me the programme – a fluffy prime-time magazine show – was planning to cover the issue of Housing Market Renewal and that she wondered if I’d be up for fronting the report, since it’s something I’ve covered a lot:
I’ve no interest in working in TV and certainly no interest in dumbing these issues down for the One Show so said thanks but it wasn’t for me. Then she suggested that they’d quite like to use some of my material and that a producer was going to get in touch to have a chat:
I was still very skeptical but when the producer called she talked me into meeting her at BBC Manchester. When I arrived she had it all planned out and hit me with a pitch:
I still had doubts but this producer has the gift of the gab and convinced me that this would be a worthwhile thing to do, both for my own project’s profile and also to get this important story out to a wider audience. I agreed to get involved, against my better judgement. As it turns out I should have followed my gut instinct and run a mile.
The producer wanted to use my Streetfighters photos and three of my cases studies, which represented some of the different outcomes residents have experienced – an elderly man (Elijah) who doesn’t want to move from his home, a family who have been forced to go and left in debt, and a lady who is still living in limbo. These would be reshot in video and turned into a five-minute report, which I was led to believe I would get some credit for. I received a (small) payment for the use of images.
A few days later I spent a full day with her, both at BBC Manchester and visiting two of the three case studies to make initial introductions, losing a day of work/study.
From that point, for me, it went swiftly downhill. I went with the One Show people to Liverpool when they did their third interview a week or two later and felt like I shouldn’t be there. I was told they no longer wanted me to do the ‘comm’ (voiceover) and finished that day with the distinct feeling that I was being stitched up. My work was simply being lifted as a cheap, pre-researched story. When I asked the producer whether I’d be credited for my material, IÂ wasn’t surprised when she said no. Apparently the One Show ‘just doesn’t do that.’
The report
The report went out last Monday and was pretty much what I expected. INFURIATINGLY, the voiceover woman got the credit for ‘investigating’ the issue of regeneration.
One thing which isn’t shown in this clip (below) is the short discussion on the sofa afterwards with Gok Wan of all people. In it the presenters made an inexcusable error. They said Elijah’s home in Oldham was now safe from the bulldozers – which is completely untrue, and the report producer knows it as she and I had discussed it on the phone. Elijah’s home is technically owned by Oldham Council following a CPO and while other acquisitions are on hold, the authority is committed to getting and clearing all homes currently in the legal process, ie his.
Lame, lame, lame from top to bottom. I’m not impressed.
* I understand that at the BBC the number of executives and editors who get involved in current affairs reports can sometimes make them morph into something different from what was planned, but I don’t feel that’s what happened here. I also think the researcher – who I know a little, having worked with her in the past – had nothing to do with this. My complaint is not really about money, but more about receiving due credit for providing much of the content of this report.
That is utterly appalling. Quite apart from the lack of credit and proper payment, it’s shocking how they’ve muscled in on your hard-won contacts with the people affected by the scheme and cheapened their issues with such a shallow, inaccurate report.
And is it just me or is the last sentence of that pitch document the most patronising shit you’ve ever read?
No wonder you’re angry. I’d be furious.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Brenda Burrell, adamoxford, windust, Kev Atkinson, ciara leeming and others. ciara leeming said: @journalismnews hey thought this might possibly interest you http://bit.ly/hyPd4B [...]
Hi Mark
Yeah, very patronising, I thought that at the time I have to admit.
Basically, if they had properly credited me and my project I would have been ok with the piece – you aren’t exactly going to get cutting-edge journalism from a show like this, but that’s the pay off for this kind of mainstream audience.
I still don’t see why I couldn’t have been credited for this material in the discussion afterwards. It’s journalistic thieving basically – just incredibly dishonest.
I am not in any way annoyed with the researcher – it’s only the producer who has done this.
Anyway, I’m moving on now. I just wanted to vent.
peas
Appalling!
Is this kind of behaviour by this big News Corporations that brought journalism to the pit it is now…
The problem is that this is the norm and not an exception.
Keep it up Ciara.
Many cheers,
Armando
Ciara, report it to the BBC Trust. I would. Thanks for posting this. I will share it as widely as I can.
Ciara, If they cannot spell your surname correctly, you can’t really expect much from them, can you! I’m appalled to hear about this but, not remotely surprised. The BBC are ripping off other peoples IPR daily, but when it comes to confronting them about their rip-offs, the shoe is suddenly on the other foot.
I guess this is the way the One Show does business, supported by a (mostly) talentless, and irritating bunch of ‘celeb’ presenters. The whole concept of the show makes me cringe – third-rate recycling of other peoples stories and ‘news’.
I disagree with you on one thing though; I would be equally annoyed with the researcher – don’t tell me that they don’t know what’s going to happen…and this is why IPR is becoming devalued, nobody cares and the general public are naive enough to provide the BBC with an endless stream of (mostly crap) pictures and other content, but, free of charge, with crushing ‘terms and conditions’ slanted totally in favour of BBC re-use, gratis.
If you went to the BBC and asked to use their content for a project, free-of-charge, you know what the response would be…so, why support the careers of the crew and witless presenters, just turn off BBC1 at 19.00 every evening!
Mike.
Ciara. What a frikking bummer. Like Mark said, the BBC piggybacked on all your research and hard-earned contacts.
It’d be interesting to hear what Elijah thought of the piece.
I agree with Laura Marcus, report it to the BBC Trust and also Press Complaints ? They should broadcast an apology.
You were right to trust your instincts.
Thanks for the support everyone, it’s good to know I’m not just being over-sensitive.
I’m not going to lodge a complaint on this – the media up here is a small place and I don’t see the point in all honesty. I am pretty sure my feelings have got back to those concerned though and I feel better for venting. I have also learned an important lesson – to avoid broadcast journalists in future :)
Pete – the complicating factor here is that I think Elijah believes his house IS safe, because acquisitions are on hold in the two later phases of his area’s regeneration. I know that’s not correct because the council has said it will proceed with those going through the legal process (ie his), and the One Show producer knows it too, she told me she just didn’t have the heart to correct him. Maybe where this error crept in. Either way, it’s inexcusable. They just shouldn’t have said anything about it.
[...] quite bizarre but unlike on previous occasions when I’ve had a dealings with broadcasters, i don’t actually mind because they had the [...]