Sir, - John Horgan (Opinion, August 26th) says that the media, in reporting the Nora Wall case, were simply doing their job; giving an accurate account of legal proceedings which were not only of interest to the public but of immense public interest. I think he is being disingenuous.
The media, your own paper included, sensationalised the story by the use of lurid headlines and colour pieces, all of which combined to give a general impression of the defendants as certainly guilty. The gratuitous publication of a story entirely without foundation of two nuns in a bed added to the air of hysterical prurience that surrounded this whole sorry affair.
I would suggest that The Irish Times could usefully examine its general policy in relation to the headlines it uses when reporting sex cases heard in court. These are frequently inappropriately sensational. Thursday's edition, for example, includes the headline: "Woman weeps as court hears how brother forced her to perform sex act". I can see no interest which is served by a headline of this kind, other than that of titillation and sensation- mongering. - Yours, etc.,
Joyce Andrews, Grange, Bective, Co Meath.
We always endeavour to get the balance right. Such reports should be neither sanitised nor sensational. No material is published, other than the report of proceedings, until the end of a trial. - Ed., IT.