![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Age discrimination case upheld
Jan. 11th, 2011 01:58 pmI am really glad about this.
All the same, I'm not sure why the sex discrimination case failed - they kept the 70-year-old male presenter (albeit relegating him to his own slot rather than keeping him as the main presenter) and got rid of a 53-year-old female one, when moving the show from Sunday mornings to Sunday evenings, replacing her with some "young blood". It seems that this is a trend on British TV current affairs programmes, where they often get rid of older female presenters who have some degree of gravitas, while bringing in "leggy" young women (while male presenters, young and old, continue to wear suits and ties).
The excuse that she was "not recognisable to a peaktime audience" doesn't wash, either. How does someone become recognisable if they don't get to present in that slot? (The "no experience" trap I know only too well.) If it's important, why bother moving the show at all?
All the same, I'm not sure why the sex discrimination case failed - they kept the 70-year-old male presenter (albeit relegating him to his own slot rather than keeping him as the main presenter) and got rid of a 53-year-old female one, when moving the show from Sunday mornings to Sunday evenings, replacing her with some "young blood". It seems that this is a trend on British TV current affairs programmes, where they often get rid of older female presenters who have some degree of gravitas, while bringing in "leggy" young women (while male presenters, young and old, continue to wear suits and ties).
The excuse that she was "not recognisable to a peaktime audience" doesn't wash, either. How does someone become recognisable if they don't get to present in that slot? (The "no experience" trap I know only too well.) If it's important, why bother moving the show at all?
