Editing Woman's Hour (section)

==Controversies==
===Breach of BBC impartiality rules===
A listener complained about the 1 October 2018, edition of ''Woman's Hour'', which featured an item discussing the nomination of Judge [[Brett Kavanaugh]] to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|US Supreme Court]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0000m7h |title=BBC Radio 4 – Woman's Hour, Melissa Laveaux, Kavanaugh Hearing, Care leavers at University |website=[[BBC Radio 4]]|date=1 October 2018}}</ref>  The feature included an interview with a law professor who had worked with [[Anita Hill]], in her pursuit of a [[sexual harassment]] complaint against an earlier nominee, Judge [[Clarence Thomas]]. The listener believed that allusions to the earlier case were immaterial and prejudicial, that the selection of interviewee was biased, and that presenter [[Jane Garvey (broadcaster)|Jane Garvey]] had expressed her personal view on a controversial topic.

The BBC Executive Complaints Unit partially upheld the listener's complaint, stating that Garvey gave the impression of sympathising with the interviewee's viewpoint, and "did not challenge the interviewee in a manner which would have ensured due impartiality". As a result, the ''Woman's Hour'' team and production staff attended a briefing on impartiality.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/womans-hour-radio-4-1-october-2018 |title=Woman's Hour, Radio 4, 1 October 2018 |date=19 June 2019 |website=Complaints |publisher=[[BBC]] |access-date=15 February 2020 |quote=The item made clear the differences, as well as the points of comparison, between the Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh cases, and the inclusion of an interviewee who clearly represented one viewpoint in the current case did not of itself lead to bias.  However, the presenter gave the impression of sympathising with that viewpoint, and did not challenge the interviewee in a manner which would have ensured due impartiality.}}</ref>

===Sinead O'Connor===
In 2021 [[Emma Barnett]] interviewed [[Sinéad O'Connor]] on ''Woman's Hour'', during which Barnett mentioned a recent comment by a music critic referring to O'Connor as "the crazy woman in pop's attic". O'Connor felt that bringing this up was "unnecessary and hurtful". The interview prompted O'Connor to announce she was quitting music, though she later retracted this, stating that Barnett had been to blame:<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/jun/08/sinead-oconnor-retracts-retirement-announcement|title= Sinéad O'Connor retracts retirement announcement|last=Snapes|first=Laura|newspaper=The Guardian|date=8 June 2021}}</ref>

{{quote|I was already so badly triggered by the time the BBC fucked me up the ass, with no warning, lube or permission, I lost my shit after women's{{sic}} hour: I felt like I did thirty years ago and for thirty years. That I'd be better off (safer) if I ran away and gave up being in music at all. Because I keep getting used as a coat hanger for people to clothe with whatever they like. My legal vulnerabilities or past agonies dragged up for salacious entertainment and the paying of the mortgages of mostly men, who, thanks be to God, have never and will never know what it's like to be a female trauma survivor in this world. A world falsely claiming every day to be less poisoned by stigma or misogyny that [sic] it is in reality... Of all the shite they could have asked about they grill me on having four kids with four fathers. About being 'a horn dog'. Then Barnett dares to suggest that 'oh aren't we much better now about discussing [[mental health]]'. No, Bitch. Because if we were you wouldn't have dragged up [[The Madwoman in the Attic|the madwoman in the attic]] scenario.}}