TRAFFICKING IN WOMEN

Camille Clarke's story in the Wednesday Guardian titled "Trafficking in women for sex" is very compelling
(http://www.guardian.co.tt/news7.html).
But Media Watch would like to make a few observations.

"I was no longer a woman, able to flash my eyes for assistance or use any feminine wiles if I were in trouble.
I felt there was no protection for me, if things went awry."
These two sentences made no sense at the beginning of your story and only served to confuse your reader. You start the story by talking about the arrest of women from Colombia way back in October, so how did your statement about feminine wiles come in? Was that the most appropriate way to start the piece?
Later in the story you revealed that you went "undercover" as a man so you could go into a "hotel" to observe the goings-on, but your decision to dress as a man had nothing to do with trafficking in women.

And why did you wait two months to go to print with this story? Was there a lapse between the arrests in October, your interviews and your adventure at the brothel? Well it's such a coincidence that the story comes just two days after the Express story on the 15 year old Colombian girl who was allegedly sold into prostitution.

Media Watch counted 54 paragraphs/sentences where you described how you strapped down your breasts, stuffed your shorts, slicked down your hair, stuck false hair to your face with paper glue, got into a maxi, evaded detection and got into the "hotel". Why was all that detail necessary? How did it add to your story line?
And men tolerate beards because they do not stick hair to their faces with paper glue.

Then you wrote that Mr Reyes said prostitution and illegal entry into ports is being investigated. Did you share your experience and tell him how easy it was to get into the "hotel"?

The entire "exposé" just seemed like a grab for attention.