91Èȱ¬

How much should I show?

It's the question every editor faces when confronted by pictures of dead bodies.

There are two powerful, opposing arguments:

1) It is only by showing uncensored picture that people can fully understand the horror of what happened - and if we don't we are in danger of sanitising the story.
2) Does the audience really need to see blood and gore to understand that something terrible has happened?

On Thursday the Ten O'Clock News obtained pictures of an alleged massacre in Iraq. Eyewitnesses claim the 11 victims (including five children, one of whom was a baby) had been murdered by marines. The US military claimed there had been a firefight involving an Al Qaeda terrorist - and that the 11 had died when their house collapsed on top of them.

As important as telling both sides was judging what pictures we could show. They included deeply distressing shots of the dead children with terrible, gaping wounds. We decided to show only two shots of the children - we blurred their faces to avoid showing their shattered skulls. Our sister programme, Newsnight, showed more pictures and decided not to blur any of them.

The next morning senior editors at the 91Èȱ¬ had different views on what should have been shown. Some argued we had played too safe, others that Newsnight had gone too far - even though they broadcast later at night and to a different audience.

Having slept on it, my own view is that we should probably have shown a little more and Newsnight should probably have shown a little less... but ultimately there is no right answer.