Defining photojournalism, images too graphic or people too sensitive?

A photo can tell a story. An image alone can make such an impact that no words are needed. When it comes to photojournalism when does a picture become to explicit and graphic? Is there even such a thing? Real news is about telling a story informing the audience’s and getting the knowledge out. Ignorance is not bliss. If something tragic is taking place people have the right to know. In my opinion if photojournalist are just simply taking pictures of what they are witnessing and what is happening then I cant be offended by that. It’s the real world and horrible things sometimes happen that’s just reality. Not shining a light on it doesn’t make it any less real. It just simply makes you less aware and less likely to take a stance and become involved in any way. However I agree with Walter’s theres a line of giving the news and showing a little bit of sensitivity. A picture or two is enough to make an impact and start a movement thats all it takes, theres no need to be showing thousands of pictures of the same devastation. It’s about using personal judgment and sensitivity when it comes to publicizing a picture. Like Patrick said you don’t want to offend too many people. Images should come with a warning give people heads up but so that those that want to look away can but its still accessible to those who chose to face the truth. On newspapers and television images should be censored enough that it still gets the truth out without being too harsh. Online however I feel like there should be more openness because these are images that most likely people are specifically searching for, as opposed to flipping channels or walking by a new-stand.