Reply #27: Well, you could argue it both ways, I suppose

[daleo]

I am inclined to think they shouldn't run it - it seems to me there has been an informal agreement not to run these sorts of things. I don't know the exact reasoning behind the ban. It could be stated as simply as good taste, or more abstractly as a desire to ensure the public does not become desensitized to actual brutality, as opposed to fictional portrayals. I think there is something to be said for the latter point.

On the other hand, it is argued that seeing the real face of war could have a sobering effect on the public, and make people less likely to agree to this extreme measure. This may be valid, but I don't know if I would want to run the experiment and find out that the public doesn't mind, or actually likes this level of filmed violence.

I would say that the current case differs from the "news footage" case, where death has been captured on film or tape by an independent journalist.

In this case, if the informal ban is broken, I think it would be because of the perceived positive propaganda value of the image, from the point of view of the Bush administration and their many friends in significant parts of the news media. But that is just a hunch or educated guess.