Are graphic images appropriate to put in the news?

Images of spewing blood, guts, and missing limbs sound like gruesome details of a decent horror movie or slasher film. But it's not; it's real life, it's happening now, and it's in the news a lot more than the average American sees.

But if the mission of journalism is to provide accurate recordings of our constant surroundings, then why is it so taboo for the media to administer graphic content to the general public? The question of why our society censors graphic content and images in the media also creates the question of how true we're being to the mission of journalism.

Is it an issue of journalism, ethics, or public interest? Those who argue that displaying graphic content is appropriate for journalism's sake make the case that fair, balanced and objective news means to record accurate events without omission of brutality.

Those who say it's a matter of ethics make the case that publicizing a catastrophic event is wrong and can also potentially corrupt a person's reputation.

Many people think that displaying graphic content is appropriate for public interest, which it's a person's right to know what is happening around them, especially if it interferes with their wellbeing.

This contrast of opinions can serve as a problem for journalists caught in drastic situations who don't know whether to do their job or act as a human to ensure their own safety.

Mike Conklin, professor of journalism at DePaul, said, "It is an individual decision. If you're dead, your efforts go unrecorded and you do no one any good."

When Osama Bin Laden was killed, there were no images to illustrate what had happened, but plenty were provided when Moammar Gadhafi was killed.

When British Indycar driver Dan Wheldon was killed on the Las Vegas Motor Speedway last month during the Indy 300 race, many people were up in arms about whether the live video of his death should have been distributed virally. It gained major attention from the public and certain people called the morale of it into question.

Steve Irwin died in Sept. 2006 after a stingray struck his chest. Public attention was sparked when news of the film involving the events that lead to his demise had surfaced. The public was then told that the video had been destroyed.

Seung-Hui Cho, the perpetrator of the Virgina Tech shootings, had not only created massive problems for his school and the lives he had taken, but also for NBC when they were publicly scrutinized for releasing the video footage Cho had sent to them that same day. Many members of the victims' families and around the country were outraged that news stations, such as NBC, would broadcast a murderer's intentions.

On 9/11, the unforgettable live footage of people jumping out of the 110 floors of both buildings was shown. While some people were interested in seeing the tragedy of that time, others were appalled that the media was repeatedly running certain clips and images.

Although many (multi)media sources in the U.S. are "censored" in such a way that graphic content is not made excessively prevalent, this is not the case in other countries. In the Middle East, blood and gore are daily parts of the news is presented to the public. American websites like rotten.com display them like they're tainted images from horror films. Little do many American citizens know that people in other parts of the world may already be immune to this type of graphic exposure.

Because of these three main opinions of journalism, ethics, and public interest, what gets broadcast on the news is up to various people within the journalism industry – from reporters to writers to producers. Because it's impossible to make everyone happy, what you choose to expose yourself to is a decision all on your own.