[Jason Raize '75 - '04]

This question has been revisited a couple of times over the past few years. Notable examples were Al-Jazeera broadcasting uncensored images of both US military and Iraqi civilians and were criticised for perpetuating anti-American sentiment. The US military in itself would later be criticised in some circles for their policy regarding military coffins being photographed, designed to protect grieving families according to the Pentagon. Naturally, there is plenty of propaganda involved both ways.

My question is this though: is there a moral obligation to be 'raw' when it comes to the visual portrayal of war - to do it without hiding the human cost?

[outunderthestars]

Photographed as they are. People are able to be too removed from the wars being faught in their names as it is. Further censoring the images of war serves only to sanitize war and make it more palatable to the public.

[disappeared]

If I wanted to look at mosaics I'd watch asian porn.

[Eljay]

Never hide the human cost, who knows how long much longer we would have been in Vietnam had the media not finally decided to start reporting more accurately about what was happening? Even today the major outlets spend far too much time on "good" stories in the warzone and minimize reports about deaths from both soldier and civilian populations. Without the draft it has become far too easy for most people to ignore the sacrifices being made every day.

[WhatRobEats]

Shown as they are. We should not diminish the price of war more than it already is. Should be shown and played on US national news at 6pm.

[Sentry]

I never understood this in japanese porn and I won't understand it in war footage. Just fucking show the truth or don't show it at all.

[max_cool]

Never hide the human cost, who knows how long much longer we would have been in Vietnam had the media not finally decided to start reporting more accurately about what was happening? Even today the major outlets spend far too much time on "good" stories in the warzone and minimize reports about deaths from both soldier and civilian populations. Without the draft it has become far too easy for most people to ignore the sacrifices being made every day.

Well, a major part of the failure of the media is they are lazy. When one is rewarded by being "first post" and by being bi-partisan (even when it's a false equivalency); it's no wonder why a reporter wouldn't want to stick his or her neck out with some deep research and "gotcha" journalism. It's ironic that in a world where information is more easily and more readily accessible than at any other time in the history of man, the US media simply prints/reports a DNC or RNC memorandum with about 2 sentences of reporting.

[Izick]

I say give a heads up if the images are graphic, but then show them as they are.

[outunderthestars]

I say give a heads up if the images are graphic, but then show them as they are.

This.

[Orpheus]

Shown. The amount of censorship that goes on during wartime bothers me quite a lot. Maybe if we saw the results of our country's actions we would get into less wars.

[Dead Man]

I say give a heads up if the images are graphic, but then show them as they are.

Yep. Insulating people from the effects of war is stupidity. If people see the results, they may be slower to clamour for it.

[sangreal]

They should be front page news.

[wenis]

Shown. It's real life, it's whats happening (or has happened, then it's apart of history). You learn from it or gain some kind of perspective for the loss and the stories.

[WAWAZA]

shown
so people can see the truth

[Steelrain]

Show it.

People won't care anyway.

[Kusagari]

I personally view that you should show it.

It should be up to the news source though.

[Casp0r]

There is a fat line between showing casualties of war and gore photos.

One is acceptable the other is vile.

[jaxword]

Censored, because we all agree that the world is a better place the more censorship there is, right?