Do we REALLY have a "Right" to see her face??

Like the World and it's brother, I'm following the Eamonn Lillis case. As I write, the court is hearing closing speeches on behalf first, of the Prosecution, and then, of the Defence. The verdict when it comes, and whatever it is, will be front page news, and lead item on Radio and TV. That's only to be expected. It's a high profile case, attracting lots of interest.

However, the controversy that erupted over Jean Treacy - the young woman with whom Eamonn Lillis had an affair, is an unexpected spin-off from the case .. and a very unpleasant one at that. To me, it poses a question - not about whether or not she was assisted by the Gardai in avoiding the cameras in the Courts complex - but about why on Earth the papers were so hell-bent on getting her photograph in the first place!

Ger Colleran, the editor of "The Star" .. a guy, incidentally, for whom I usually have tremendous respect, was highly indignant about the shielding of Miss Treacy from his photographers lens - and has been very vocal about "the publics right to know"..

Their right to know WHAT, Ger.. ??

Neither Ger, nor any other editor has been able to explain to me, why it's so necessary to plaster Miss Treacys face across the papers or the TV screen. She is, of course, a witness in a very high profile case.. but that's ALL she is. She is accused of NOTHING , faces NO charges, and merely gave evidence because the Prosecution wanted to hear about her affair with the accused - an affair to which they both freely admit - and which is not against any law that I know of..

There is NO automatic public entitlement to see her face, as far as I can see.

If she's OK with being photographed, then that's her call. If not - same thing - her call. Not Ger Collerans call - not the call of any editor to make, regardless of how many papers it will sell the next morning - which, let's face it, folks, is the agenda here, at the end of the day.

Over the weekend, her picture was eventually obtained and published, in most of the papers,yet nobody has yet been able to explain the necessity for doing so.

Again, I stress, this young woman has done nothing wrong - yet her picture is presented across the papers, as if it adds something to the facts of the case - which, of course, a blind man could see that it does not.

We who work in the media really need to examine our consciences on this one.

Was it ABSOLUTELY necessary?? Did it make a DIFFERENCE to the story?? .. REALLY??

If it did - well I must be missing it ....