Following on from the previous post....
...but this time (and 16 hours later) answer came there none!
So I think we can infer from that that Jane Garvey really did mean that unplanned 44-second mention of Cologne by a Woman's Hour guest during a discussion about 'women to watch in 2016' to be her justification for so dismissively replying "No, it isn't" to DB's question, "Is it true that Woman's Hour hasn't covered the NYE sex attacks?".
The word 'disingenuous' springs to mind.
In every meaningful sense of the word, Woman's Hour didn't 'cover' the attacks. Just because one of their guests briefly mentioned it in passing that doesn't amount to 'covering' it.
(Hence, perhaps, Jane's sudden introduction of the word 'mentioned' rather than 'covered' after being challenged to provide an iPlayer link to the relevant discussion).
Anyhow, we did learn from Jane Garvey that tomorrow's edition of Woman's Hour with give listeners "more" about the NYE sex attacks. (What? 45 seconds this time?)
Maybe they'll do it justice.
Maybe they won't just have some Guardian journalist blaming it on men in general and warning us all against 'xenophobia'; or a German academic/social worker/politician blaming it on men in general and warning us all against 'xenophobia; or both.
We'll have to wait and see.