I believe the paramount reasons for the coming into being of the print media are to influence public opinion and, of course, to make a dollar. In all this, responsibility must be the guided masthead, since this involves ethics, mainly. Sensationalism is cautioned probably because of its potential for inflaming public sentiments on very sensitive issues.
This nation has been the recipient of Kaieteur News deluge of sensationalism throughout the years, even drawing public comments from the late President Janet Jagan to such an effect. Since there is freedom of the press then such a line is accepted without objections from the state authorities.
Probably such an approach brings sales for the paper. I do not know. But what I do know is that the style of this print medium reporting is damaging to the nation’s image, and maybe engenders fear in the hearts of some of the reading public. For the sake of argument, again, it is their democratic right to report as the realities are.
There are those who will argue that serious incidents must be highlighted, as it conveys to the wider public the seriousness, and the need for awareness, of such a problem  But, to have an extreme such as a murder reported at the top right hand side of a  lead page via the headline “Abused woman butchered by husband” in the issue of 14.9.10, can only serve to drive fear into the hearts of  women generally, particularly those who are in abusive relationships, many of whom, already  resigning  themselves to such a fate.
The aspect to note in this instance is that the actual details of this latest, reported domestic brutality are relegated to page 8! How does one rationalise place of caption with actual place of details in this instance? If the incident is so important, as it really is, given its epidemic nature in this society, then it should have been reported on an earlier page.
Is this sensational style of reporting of such a highly sensitive and brutal social issue acceptable?  Do I hear the response: Is there another format?