I wish to touch on the complaint by your reader Very Bemused that our media ought not to sensationalise graphic details of a sexual nature to boost circulation.

And also on the statement by the All Women's Action Society (Awam)'s president Judith Loh who derided that " ... NST saw fit to report in detail the condition of Noritta's genitalia at the time of her death on its front page while The Star, fared no better with its headline".

The news may be 'sensational' to many buying newspapers but this does not mean that the news is sensationalised. To sensationalise is to give an emphatic slant in a manner than detracts from accurate reporting of facts.

If the reporting of the forensic pathologist's evidence in court of the state of the female victim's genitalia was accurate, then it should be reported even if Awam thinks that it is demeaning to the cause of women.

It has been argued here that consideration for privacy and sensitivity of victim family ought to be given.

Whilst this is true, privacy and sensitivity have to be balanced against another competing,if conflicting, principle in journalism that the public, too, has the legitimate right to know the facts - whether they are boring or sensational as long as they are the unvarnished facts.

If all reasonable sides of a court trial should be fairly reported, and if an alleged perpetrator of a crime should be fairly accorded the right to say his side of the story so that the public at least shall not prejudge guilt, then in such a case there is nothing wrong in reporting the state of a victim's swollen vagina if it were central and material to the crux of the accused's defence.

Taking the issue beyond the narrow confines of Noritta's case to a larger issue of public education or rather more specifically sex education, of which the state of in this country has been lamented as undesirable - I would imagine that, but for this case, there are very few of the public that have even heard of the word 'sexual asphyxia', much less want to practise it.

Yet, there is not only the right to know but the necessity to be well-informed that there is indeed such a 'kinky' sexual pratcise to heighten intensity of orgasm to the point of flirting with death.

Now, we live in a country of great extremities with some thinking that there is nothing out of ordinary to play consensual kinky sexual games like sexual asphyxia in a group whilst others take the view that it is indecent for a couple to hold hands in the park.

What happens - if hypothetically - the latter is in the position to be called upon to investigate or judge the conduct of the former? The fear is not that the investigator or judge would think that the perpetrator is depraved or immoral.

The greater fear is that in the absence of knowledge, the latter may be in a state of denial that there is indeed in existence such a kinky game being played by some that indeed might actually result in accidental death.

This makes the difference between accidental death and premeditated murder towards which enquiry will be directed.

If knowledge of such a difference on the part of persons who are in official positions to investigate or judge is imperative for a fair response so that justice is done, then in the interest of the greater public good, I am all for the media to report the factual parts of a trial accurately no matter that the news may at the same time be 'sensational' - as distinct from 'sensationalised' - and boost circulation.