But it hasn't, so far, and this article buried in Yahoo entertainment news (yes, entertainment news) yesterday partly explains why: apparently we're too delicate and sensitive to witness the horrors.
"As with any death, we tried to make sure the pictures were as 'tasteful' as possible -- not much blood or gore," one anonymous respondent wrote. "We ran a front page picture of the four dead contractors in Fallujah, for instance, but from a greater distance than some newspapers, so the bodies were not immediately distinct as corpses. Even so, we drew a large amount of criticism from readers."
...another journalist wrote..., "We want to show what is happening, but also to avoid causing unnecessary shock and distress to viewers or encouraging further brutality by hostage takers. It is a difficult task."
So here's me, flipping through my local paper. I see a long-shot image of Americans who died in a war, and I email the editor saying I was offended at the picture?
What the fuck? Am I so brainwashed by the hypnotic chant of the Bush Administration that I must protest any suggestion that war kills nice American people?
I am offended at the war. At the lies that took us to Iraq. At the fact that half of this stupid-ass nation of mine still believes there was some connection between Iraq and Osama bin Laden. I'm offended by every single damn thing about the war. But I am not offended by accurate news coverage of it. If there were more of it, we'd have ended this travesty by now.
Kudos to lapin at DailyKos for bringing this deeply-buried news item to the surface today.