The terrible events in Woolwich on Wednesday have once again sparked debate about what balance, if any, the media needs to strike in covering such news without appearing to gratuitously exploit shocking images.
TV broadcasts carried warnings about the images. People had time to look away or switch over if so inclined. Images raced through social media, but we all have a choice of clicking or not clicking.
More inescapable though, for those not wishing to confront the horror of this story, were the front pages of today's newspapers, most of which carried graphic images of a bloodstained killer still wielding a knife, his victim visible in the background in some pictures.
It is an issue which naturally divides people because everybody's threshold for such detail is different. A survey of Media Blog readers today found 56 per cent of respondents said they believe the papers were wrong to run the images on their front pages, while 36 per cent said they believe the papers were in the right.
Respondents also had the opportunity to leave a comment. Below is a selection from more than 240 comments which illustrates just how divided people are on this issue:
"I think papers should show a little responsible restraint instead of the all out sensationalism. There's no need to show such pictures on the front page. I'm not saying they shouldn't run them at all, but there's no need for them to be splashed, so large, in such a prominent position."
"The images reflected the horror of the event and were therefore not gratuitous."
"I am truly astounded at the decision taken by the papers to use such horrifyingly graphic images on their front pages!"
"We must see these images to believe them and to truly comprehend what happened. Words like "brutal" and "horrific" are tossed about too easily these days, speaking as a shameless tabloid hack; such language in copy on the front without the pictures just wouldn't sink in."
"It simply seems to be giving the criminals the publicity they yearned for and is completely inappropriate and disrespectful to the family of the victim."
"It would appear that newspaper editors have played right into the Woolwich attackers hands by giving them the publicity they wanted."
"I think it is right to emphasise the full horror of situations like this, we can't hide from it."
"Sensationalism sells - I understand that - but I feel this is too much."
"Of course it is important to shield our children from the ever present violence and terror of today's world. However, the press have a duty to report the news as it is, reserving the front page for the most important news stories and the Woolwich murder was indisputably the most important national news story."
"People need to see and know the whole truth about incidents like the one that occurred in Woolwich."
"I don't think they were right to, but I also think they were left no choice after ITV had broadcast the video. From their point of view, they would have looked out of touch with events not to publish once they were in the public domain."
"It's not the media's job to censor news. These images reflect the horror of the killing, and not to report this event in the fullest manner would be negligent. If you don't like the news, look away. We need to bear witness to these terrible crimes."
"Having watched the video of the attacker I feel I'd be a hypocrite to complain about the front pages."
"It was pure sensationalism, didn't add anything to the story. I actively didn't buy a newspaper today because of it."
"Such horrifying photos should not be shown on any media. That is the blood of someone's son. We live in a country where the breasts of a Royal can't be printed but a murdered man is shown and his killer is published wielding weapons, covered in blood. It is wrong."
"The images have already spread around the world on social media, internet and television. No point in censoring them now."
"The newspapers are there to report the news as it is, not sanitise it."
"Ghoulish and unnecessary. I don't believe graphic images are warranted for anyone to appreciate the seriousness of the incident."
"I don't think the news should be censored - it was a bloody, brutal and shocking massacre and it happened on a suburban street here. People shouldn't be sheltered from it. Censor this and other things will be censored to avoid offending people."
"If you don't want to see the images, don't buy the papers. Life isn't always pleasant."
"The screen grabs coupled with repeating the words of the attacker as a headline were too much. If the terrorists could have designed their own posters, they couldn't have done a better job than that."
You can add your own comments below.