Coverage of the more grisly aspects of war puts government in a bind. On one hand we are committed to a free press - or at least saddled by it due to the First Amendment if that is your preferred take. We are also a democracy, which is defined as rule by the people. People are better able to rule effectively (the story goes) if they have full information about public matters. Presumably this includes understanding the actual consequences of the military endeavors we get involved in from time to time.
But on the other hand governing institutions like to have enough secrecy - at least in the short term - to effectively accomplish stated goals. We are not simply a democracy, but a democratic republic, and in such a system limits are placed on all sources of power in the nation, including that of public opinion. Founding documents are full of references to the need to ensure that the opinions of the general population not have an immediate impact on public policy.
So does that justify placing limits on the gory aspects of war? Or is this an unjustifiable restriction on self government?
And given the decentralized nature of technology - and the fact that images fly at us from many sources - are these limitations possible?
The Dish highlights the following photograph that helped turn public opinion against the Vietnam War:
