The Importance Of Censorship Of Wartime Photos

To be censored or to not be censored

Should wartime images be censored for the general public? Typically, your first thought would be yes, they should be censored because not everyone can stomach that, but is that really the best thing for the general public? Sure basically all photos of war are graphic, unless staged, so does that mean if you censor the photos you are sugarcoating the truth?
Allowing photographers to be present on the front line of war is risky for all of the involved parties. The photographer is putting their life at risk in order to capture an authentic photograph of the action. So, if the photographer is volunteering and willing to be present at the front line of war, why not go ahead and let them? Now that the photographers have risked their lives to capture these amazing images of battle scenes and casualties, the images are in actually in discussion of even being published. Ridiculous, right? Millions of men and woman are out fighting in our army, some dying and never returning home, and we're in the safety of our own houses complaining about being offended by these wartime images. If it offends you, traumatizes you, or disgusts you, why would you even view the images? This is the real world. Graphic stuff like this really does happen. You have the choice of whether you want
Staging war photos is like staging sports pictures; they look glamorous but you know it's just for that reason, to look good. The fact that most people feel the need to stage war photos, says enough about the ordeal. The only time I believe it is acceptable to publish staged war photos is when you will be using the photos with intention that no one will believe they are real. You should never publish a staged war photo with the intention of the public taking it seriously. Nor should you have the staged photo replace the realtime photo. That's just rude and outright offensive to the