"A review of six prominent U.S. newspapers and the nation's two most popular newsmagazines during a recent six-month period found almost no pictures from the war zone of Americans killed in action."

The paper explained:

"Many photographers and editors believe they are delivering Americans an incomplete portrait of the violence that has killed 1,797 U.S. service members and their Western allies and wounded 12,516 Americans."

During World War II, the Roosevelt administration strictly prohibited news outlets from printing photos of dead U.S. soldiers because of the obvious blow it would be to American morale. And the press willingly complied.

The same sensibility largely prevailed during Korea, Vietnam and the First Gulf War.

But with many in today's media opposed to the Iraq war, some say it's time to change the rules.

"There can be horrible images, but war is horrible and we need to understand that," veteran war photographer Chris Hondros told the Times. "I think if we are going to start a war, we ought to be willing to show the consequences of that war."

Pim Van Hemmen, assistant managing editor for photography at the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., agreed, telling the Times:

"Writing in a headline that 1,500 Americans have died doesn't give you nearly the impact of showing one serviceman who is dead."

By censoring the photos of GIs as they lay dying, Van Hemmen said, "We in the news business are not doing a very good job of showing our readers what has really happened over there."

Steve Stroud, deputy director of photography at the Los Angeles Times, also thinks the public needs to see more photos of dead American soldiers.

"I feel we still aren't seeing the kind of pictures we need to see to tell the American people about this war and the costs of the war," he explained.

Michele McNally, New York Times director of photography, concurred, observing: "War kills men, women and children, and we would be remiss if we couldn't in some way show that this is what happens in war. ... It's our responsibility to bear witness to these events."

Media support for showing more American bloodshed comes despite the risk that soldiers' families may consider the display a horrible violation of privacy.

Deirdre Sargent, whose husband was deployed to Iraq, recently complained to editors of the News Tribune of Tacoma, Wash., after the paper printed a photo of a dying GI that she said left her "shaking and in tears for hours."

"It was tacky, unprofessional and completely unnecessary," Sargent said.

Executive Editor Dave Zeeck told the Times that he tried to address the complaints in an essay published on Page 2 of the main news section. He explained to readers that he believed the picture, taken by John Moore of the Associated Press, epitomized the sacrifice of the American soldier.

"We not only have the right, but the responsibility to run such photos," Zeeck told the Times.

MSNBC.com posted the same photo to its Web site, prompting complaints from the dying soldier's family.

"At first we thought it was a really iconic photo of the terrible violence going on in Iraq," MSNBC.com editor in chief Dean Wright told the Times.

But when it turned out the soldier could be identified, Wright took the photo down, saying, "We thought it was too horrific, because it was more personalized then."

Editor's note:
Hey: Browse NewsMax’s Online Classifieds for Great Offers – Click Here Now!
Hat Protects Your from Sun and Cancer! Get the Desert Hat Worn By Our Troops – Click Here Now!
Tommy Franks’ best-selling book "American Soldier" – FREE OFFER – Click Here Now

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Media Bias
Saddam Hussein/Iraq
War on Terrorism