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.
I was listening to radio 5 live on Sunday evening, the 5 live hit-list which covers the most shared news stories of the week, and of course Cologne was near the top, so it was discussed. However, the choice of focus was the mayor's response (the suggestion that women keep strangers at arms length), and interpreting what this suggests about how German society tends to respond to sexual violence - ironically, the guest started out by mentioning that the mayor was taken somewhat out of context (she was responding to a question about how women could protect themselves), but that didn't prevent them discussing it anywayReplyDelete
Yup, precisely accurate of the eventual Women's Hour discussion!ReplyDelete