PressEthic

The bloody side of war is one Americans are rarely exposed to directly. When is it gratuitous and when is it informative? When is it free speech and when is it propaganda?

There is little new about these questions, and mainstream media has generally decided to minimize graphic content. Through the internet, any kind of imagery is accessible, yet video-sharing sites like YouTube are imposing their own principles of decency.

The New York Times ran a story today on the ongoing postings of videos showing insurgent attacks against Americans in Iraq on video sharing sites like YouTube and Google.

Many of the videos, showing sniper attacks against Americans and roadside bombs exploding under American military vehicles, have been posted not by insurgents or their official supporters but apparently by Internet users in the United States and other countries, who have passed along videos found elsewhere.

The crux of the story is that these outlets may be the only access Americans have to such images, due to government restrictions and self-imposed media censorship. Some videos may be posted by insurgent groups. Others by anti-war or free speech activists.

At a time when the Bush administration has restricted photographs of the coffins of military personnel returning to the United States and the Pentagon keeps close tabs on videotapes of combat operations taken by the news media, the videos give average Americans a level of access to combat scenes rarely available before, if ever.

However, there is self-imposed censorship in internet media too:

Their availability has also produced some backlash. In recent weeks, YouTube has removed dozens of the videos from its archives and suspended the accounts of some users who have posted them, a reaction, it said, to complaints from other users.

More than four dozen videos of combat in Iraq viewed by The New York Times have been removed in recent days, many after The Times began inquiries.

The Times reports that both YouTube and Google spokespeople said that such videos violate internal guidelines on graphic violence.

Which is not to say the videos cease to exist. They simply move to sites that are more permissive, and probably more obscure.