This is the piece about the Madrid bombings that I discussed at conference. This is a picture from the scene with the body part clearly visible.Madrid Bombing 

Reuters/El Pais 


After reading your article, I tend to side more with the idea that removing an image is unnecessary and that despite the potential shock value of an image in itself, people can quite easily decline not to read or buy a paper if they so wish. However, perhaps The Guardian's decision in effect improved sales - which after all is arguably a main part of a paper's agenda. But, should we trust organisations like this who move in length to sanitise? Now we no the truths of airbrushing and altering, should we as news consumers mistrust and then not read papers like The Guardian as a consequence? Perhaps, perhaps not. But that would be perhaps naive as we need to see all sides of the story.

Although it does seem clear this was ethically a poor decision by The Guardian et al. Hiding the truth should not be in a journalist's mantra, but it so clearly is. RANT OVER...

So Prof Lewis says that readers want the "images to be true" - are these the same readers that are still outraged when a true but deeply disturbing photograph of war is published? Or should I say are these the people that have stopped the editors allowing such pictures to be published?

Altered Images