Is it right to use the horror to convey the truth?

THREE tiny children lie dead beside each other on a hospital floor, victims of the Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip. Their father collapses in grief. As an image of war, it is as shocking as they come. But should it be published?

That has been the dilemma for newspaper and television executives across the world as they assess what is acceptable for public consumption. Is it enough simply to count the growing death toll on both sides, or should the horror of war be given a human face – even if that human face is one that is dead?

Yesterday, The Scotsman published on our front page another horrific image – one of the bloodied but "lucky" pupils to escape death when shells exploded next to their school. Today we reproduce the hospital image, but not without careful consideration.

Mike Gilson, the editor of The Scotsman, said: "When I looked at the pictures of dead children from Gaza they were shocking, but they also hit me hard and brought home more than any pictures of grief could do what horror was unfolding. However, I then decided not to give our readers that experience which was troubling.

"In the end I think it is about balance. Perhaps they were not right for the front page of The Scotsman. However, within articles like this and within spreads giving objective analysis and commentary, I think occasionally they can serve to powerfully remind us of a terrible truth of war."

War photography has changed much over the years. The first images of conflict date from the Crimean war and the American civil war.

By the time of the Falklands war, getting the pictures back to base remained a problem. The first "satellite" war was the first Gulf war in 1991, when TV pictures of explosions across the Baghdad skyline were beamed back instantaneously. Now 24-hour news channels, the internet and mobile-phone pictures abound.

But the dilemma of what is acceptable to publish remains. At a time of war, shocking images have great propaganda value, and can quickly sway public opinion for or against a conflict.

"It's clear that images of civilian casualties or human rights abuses and death do influence public opinion about war," said Brian McNair, professor of journalism and communication at the University of Strathclyde.

Pictures of detained Iraqis being dragged around the notorious Abu Ghraib prison like dogs, hoods covering their heads, spring to mind. They brought an apology from George Bush, the US president, on Arabic TV. Then there were the images of planeloads of silver caskets returning from Iraq that the US military did not want ordinary Americans to see.

The US involvement in Vietnam will be forever remembered for the image of a naked girl, her skin burning from napalm, fleeing for her life.

"There is no doubt images of civilians being killed or wounded have come to play a part in the political debate about whether those wars are legitimate and just, and have influenced government policy," Prof McNair said.

"In the Spanish news media, you will see bloody corpses from terrorist bombings on prime-time news at 6pm. In this country, the broadcast media have rules about what they can show. They don't tend to show body parts. Print media are less restricted.

"I personally think they should show the images (of the dead schoolchildren]. They shouldn't be censoring themselves. War is not a bloodless or sanitised process."

Steven Barnett, professor of communications at the University of Westminster, said media organisations – and particularly 24-hour news channels – faced stiff competition to be first with new images.

In the UK, they also had to comply with Ofcom guidelines, and the difficulty of avoiding bias in reporting the hugely difficult politics of the Middle East.

Ofcom's broadcasting code warns against material that could cause "harm and offence", particularly to viewers who could come across it unawares. There is no explicit prohibition on broadcasting images of war but material is considered harmful or offensive if it shows scenes of distress, violation of human dignity or violence.

Prof Barnett said: "There's a very persuasive argument, and one I do subscribe to, that we tend to be a little too squeamish about portraying the reality of war. It's a brutal, bloody business, and the more we try to censor the reality, the less people really understand what it is.

"The classic image is the one from Vietnam – the little girl running away with horrendous burns. There was a huge argument at the time about whether that should have been shown. Forty years down the line, it's still remembered as one of the iconic photos of that war.

"Had today's media been around 100 years ago, it's almost certain the First World War would never have lasted four years. People wouldn't have stood for it."

Hilary Roberts, who manages the photograph collections at the Imperial War Museum in London, said the turning point in showing victims of war came with the liberation of concentration camps at the end of the Second World War.

During the First World War, military commanders wanted to record the Battle of the Somme in 1916 – what was supposed to be a glorious moment. But images of dead British soldiers was not on the agenda. "The etiquette of the time, which was observed by both sides, was that you didn't photograph the dead of your own side," Ms Roberts said.

"In 1916, the only corpses that were photographed tended not to be recognisable and not too badly mutilated.

"In 1917 that changed, mainly because the photographers became aware that their work was not only to produce material for immediate publication, but for the record."

The discovery of the concentration camps was a breakthrough for war photography. "That was when photographers were sent into camps to prove to the world what had happened," Ms Roberts said. "It was done by them at considerable personal cost. George Rodger, of Magnum, decided to give up war photography for good on the basis of what he saw at Belsen."

She is aware of the arguments against publication pictures of war dead. "Sometimes it's difficult for people to absorb the reality of it. They will turn away and turn off and put it down if it's too hard," she said. "There are other circumstances where it's absolutely correct to show the reality. The concentration camps were such a case."

BACKGROUND

THE history of war photography dates from the Crimean War and the American Civil War. But it was during the First World War that it really began in earnest.

Official photographers were appointed by the different branches of the British armed forces. News photographers were also allowed, and soldiers took photographs with their own cameras.

But professional photographers were barred from the front line in 1914 and 1915. As a result, the only images of the 1914 Christmas truce were captured by soldiers. Most early war images were from British coastal towns that suffered bombing from German ships or Zeppelins.

News photographers were granted wider access in 1916 to cover the Battle of the Somme. A documentary film was seen by half of all Britons at cinemas.

By the time of the Second World War, the British military was prepared to grant greater access to photographers.But the importance of their work hit home only when the concentration camps were discovered at the end of the war. Documentary proof was needed to convince the world of the atrocities that had been committed.

For many, the defining image of war came in 1972, when nine-year-old Kim Phuc was photographed running naked from a napalm attack in Vietnam.