I finished watching this a couple of days ago. It was a gripping TV series and like everyone else here I've continued to be fascinated by the ongoing real life fallout.

I want to be clear that there is no version of this where Fiona Harvey has not behaved abhorrently, or where Richard Gadd is not deserving of great empathy. Reading even the minimum of what is known (or very likely) to be true, those points are in the bank - this isn't a post trying to turn the tables in any way. That said, I do think it is a problematic series, and both morally and legally this hinges on how much of it is actually true. I see a lot of people playing this down and just want a moment to try and explore this.

"This is a true story" is the first thing we see when watching this show. Now, I don't think anyone holds that to such a literal standard to think that no dramatisation has happened at all - we all understand that dialogue will not be verbatim, that some events will be truncated or chronologically moved about etc. But I think a reasonable expectation of being told this is that the "headline" events did transpire. We are not going to quibble over if FH sexually assaulted RG by a canal immediately after he'd had a date, but we would reasonably expect that FH at some point has sexually assaulted RG. RG did not have to find that FH has existing criminal convictions sat at this computer right after getting a friend request from her, but we would reasonably expect that at some point he found that FH has existing criminal convictions, etc. At this point I think everyone who has looked into this has come to realise that, though FH has clearly harassed RG and a lot of the "headlines" are there... the show likely does not meet this standard of "truth" with respect to every "headline" we see. There's a lot of doubt on the two points I've mentioned, not say that she almost certainly wasn't convicted or sent to prison for stalking him, and that was the resolution of the core plot.

I think there are two reasons why this is an issue. The first is something that's getting discussed plenty already - legal implications. Lots of people are quick to point out that at the tail end of the credits the show does give more of a "dramatisation" disclaimer, but this is weak IMO. We wouldn't let a product get away with saying in no uncertain terms it's one thing in big letters on the box, but then explain it's actually not that thing in the smallest of its small print. That's false advertising and we're (rightly) quick to call it out when it's done by something we don't like. This is not to mention that most people will never even see that part of the credits with Netflix always autoplaying the next thing before it can even appear. I'm not a lawyer, and that small print may or may not make a difference if brought to court, but I think it's wrong for people to jump to this like it shuts down the problem.

The second issue is that I don't believe this show would have got nearly as big as it did were it not for the understanding that it is (all) true. It was an effective drama for sure, but it reaches the heights of engagement that its managed on the trust the viewer has that we are watching what has actually happened to RG, rather than a series of half-truths looked at through the blurring lens of his emotional truth. It's a bit like the difference between seeing a cool video online, but then realising it was staged rather than an actual one-in-a-million event caught on camera. It's a good drama one way or the other, but the impact the show has had is absolutely tied to "this is a true story" and trying to distance itself from the claim after the fact is the production trying to have its cake and eat it too.

"This is a true story" is only two words different to "based on a true story", but they're extremely different phrases. Audiences have seen the latter countless times. It's not just something that is sound in its literal sense, but something we're used to and primed to be cynical about. When do we ever see "this is a true story" except in documentaries? Some people may well have still held some cynicism (as I've seen claim on here), but I'd bet a lot of money that the strong majority of viewers really believe the whole show because of how bold a statement that is to lead with. It not being a true story is an issue in the most straightforward of moral senses - it's a lie, and how we react to the show is inextricably led by this lie. Beyond that, it's a lie that involves real people. They may be far from sympathetic but especially off the back of a morally-curious program we should be mature enough to separate the FH from this production decision.

Ultimately I think it's a shame because RG has made something very special. I found the series to be such an effective and thought-provoking exploration of sexual abuse and the long term, complicated and self-perpetuating ramifications it can have. Against that impact, fawning over this detail or that detail can absolutely seem like nitpicking and I understand people being frustrated by this. But it's also something I think, rightly or wrongly, would cut the wider audiences engagement with the program in half if fully known about. It seems small, but is difficult to play down because it's also the reason the show has reached as far as it has. It's only a few words but it was wrong to use them. I think we'd be quicker to call this out if RG wasn't so incredibly sympathetic otherwise.