NY Times (you might need to register to view the whole story) brings out an editorial conundrum. When are pictures of war too bloody or violent? Is the sanitizing of war imagery a form of editorializing? Susan Sontag's thoughtful "Regarding he Pain of Others" considers how our media and culture think about images of war and disaster. If the reporter's work is to show the truth, then how can filtering images of the actual war fields and of the results of the actions of the soldiers be justified? When does substituting photos of young, fit soldiers for those of the dead become editorializing, and when does it slip into jingoistic propaganda? If the horrors are done in our name, aren't we responsible for confronting them? Here's what they say in the NY Times:

During an era when popular culture is filled with depictions of violence and death, and the combination of technology and battlefield access for reporters has put the public in the middle of a shooting war, the images that many Americans are seeing are remarkably bloodless. The heroic narrative is shaped in part by what editors and producers view as a need to maintain standards and not offend their audience. But some cultural critics say that the relatively softened imagery has more to do with a political need to celebrate victory without dwelling on its price. If this is war, they ask, where is the gore?

Telling War's Deadly Story at Just Enough Distance