War and Gore Seem to Go Hand-In-Hand

"Portraits of War: Unseen pictures, Untold Stories" by James Rainey addresses various questions pertaining to the war in Iraq and how its results are presented to the american public such as:

-Should newspapers and magazines be able to show such graphic photographs of the war?
-If so, to what extent?
-Does showing such things reveal the true nature of war, or does it just scare and offend people beyond explanation?
-Do Americans need to see the blood and gore to understand and appreciate those in the war?
-Some journalist say that their best work comes from the consequences of war, should journalists be able to show their best work, even if its contents are potentially disturbing and gruesome images of the dead american soldiers, dead Iraqi savilians and homeless Iraqi children?

In the article, Rainey talks about how Kathy Hernandez [the mother of Babbitt, who is the man on the stretcher in the picture above] who was greatly devistated by the photos use in newspapers, internet and magazines. She said, in tears, "...tacky, unprofessional and completely unnecessary." Hernandez wished that newspapers could have waited at least until after her son's funeral to run the photo. she goes on to says, " I do think it's an important thing, for people to see what goes on over there," and " it throws reality more in your face. And sometimes we can't help reality."

Chris Hondros is a veteran war photographer said, "there can be horrible images, but war is horrible and we need to understand that," he also said " I think if we are going to start a war, we ought to be willing to show the consequences of that war." Executive editor Dave Zeeck said, "We not only have the right, but the responsibility to run such photos."

At this point I would have to disagree with newspapers, magazines and the internet posting photographs such as the one above. I would have to agree with Fred Nelson, a photo editor for the Seattle Times, who said that readers are intelligent, and that they can figure it out "a photo of a bloody body in their face every time it happens."

Rainy talks about how journalists join soldiers in several life-threatening situations, but soldiers often loose their respect in the journalists as soon as they rush to the seen of the wounded and dead soldiers to take photographs.

The director of New York Times photography, Michele McNelly, said, "War kills men, women and children, and we would be remiss if we couldn't in some way show that this is what happens in war."
My question however, is when did articles suddenly become not enough? Are names and numbers not enough public recognition that we need to show a man bleeding to death, for the entire world to see.

Another interesting point in the article is when Rainey discusses Iraqi casualties and American casualties and their exposure. I thought that it was crazy how the newspapers, magazines and the internet can post hundreds of pictures of Iraqi casualties and sufferage and their is little-to-no backlash because these photos do not require notification of family members and can be transmitted without restrictions. But as soon a photo like the one of Babbit above, there was a huge backlash of numerous complaints about the "insensitivity" of the photograph.