There has been a bit of a hooplah over the past couple of weeks which was kickstarted by an advert for an upcoming BBC show which implied the Queen had taken the huff and stormed out of a photoshoot.

As it turned out, Her Majesty hadn’t stormed out and the footage used was actually of her walking into the room - the production company simply altered the chronological order of the footage to make it suit their version of events.

Now, there’s no doubt in anyone’s minds that this happens all the time - especially in reality shows, but as their “stars” aren’t quite as powerful as the Queen then noone would pay any attention if they complained about it.

The BBC have been good, in my view, in that they have had internal investigations and made public all the times they feel that they have conned the public - more often than not by supposedly “fixing” telephone competitions rather than by decieving them in an actual programme itself.

There have been further accusations in the newspapers about shows featuring Gordon Ramsay and Bear Grylls where the complaint is that certain lies were told about the catching of fish or the living arrangements.  Bear Grylls is meant to be a survival expert and his show is a how-to guide about surviving in the harshest environments - however it turns out that certain segments were staged, and horror of horrors he may have actually stayed in a hotel!

People have to remember that what’s on TV isn’t real - even so-called reality shows.  As soon as someone knows they are on camera then they stop acting normally.

As for shows like Bear Grylls, the production team can’t afford to waste time hanging about for him to catch a frog to eat or whatever is on the agenda that day so if they take along their own frog then does it really matter?  The main point is that he knows what he is talking about, he has done it before and it’s entertaining and informative to watch - the fact he didn’t actually catch the frog he’s holding doesn’t matter much to me.

There used to be a programme on BBC Scotland when I was growing up, which featured a guy who went hill walking all over the country.  This show probably inspired people who normally wouldn’t bother to get up and get out and about in the countryside which can only be a good thing, yet when he filmed near where I stay, it came to pass that he actually got moved about by helicopter and only walked short stretches at a time for filming purposes.

This fact didn’t take anything away from the programme, and the guy (I can’t remember his name, may have been Alan McGregor or something similar….) obviously knew his stuff and wasn’t just bluffing for the cameras so this little white lie in the production was acceptable - to me at least.

A current programme which I’m surprised has failed to come under any close scrutiny so far is Top Gear.  I love the programme, but every now and again they’ll have a challenge where they split up and race each other using totally different methods yet the finish is always very close - is that really how it pans out, or is it made to look that way to heighten the drama?

Their latest challenge involved two of the presenters trying to drive to the North Pole in a Toyota pick-up while the other took the more conventional method of dogsled.  For anyone to get the North Pole is an amazing achievement and the show was absolutely brilliant, however the ending left us with the impression that the dogsled and pick-up teams were not all that far from each other.  In this blog it’s explained by producer Andy Wilman that Richard Hammond with the dogsled “was miles and miles behind” - not the feeling you get from watching the programme.

Of course, the editor and production team would say they were failing in their jobs of they didn’t make best use of the footage available to them and I’d tend to agree.

Hopefully this whole thing will blow over - apart from the dodgy phone contests then I don’t see that any harm has come to anyone.