'Sensationalist' headline on case was unnecessary
WAS it really necessary for a report of a case in Derby Crown Court in the Telegraph of February 21 to carry a headline "Woman having sex with a tiger among 'sick' porn haul in pervert's possession"?
While I can appreciate the need to report the court appearance and conviction of a local pervert in your newspaper, I feel that the headline was nothing short of sensationalism and there was absolutely no need to provide explicit information in your report. You clearly didn't want the public to miss the article as it took up almost a third of a page. Does the reporter concerned and, presumably the editor, not realise that children also read newspapers?
Surely it would have been sufficient to merely report that the guilty party had extreme pornography and indecent photographs of children, without going into explicit detail.
There was a time when one would not expect to see headlines of this nature in a local newspaper, but seemingly standards have dropped and that time has long since passed, but I sincerely hope that this is not the case. There are things that we really don't want to know and consideration should be given to this aspect when compiling a report.