In the wake of the SABC showing footage of Andries Tatane's brutal killing and the as-yet-unreleased pictures of Osama bin Laden's death, the debate around publishing or broadcasting gory images and videos has been resurrected. But we should remember it's not only governments, but also societal conventions, that can enforce censorship. And when the media fights attempts at being censored, it usually means journalists are doing something right.

Humans are fascinated by the macabre. From horror movies to shoot ’em up video games, there are entire industries dedicated to blood and guts and gore. People enjoy watching death, the more spectacular the better. In medieval times, when we were all a little more honest with ourselves, the entire town would gather to watch the public executions. Now we gather in cinemas, popcorn in hand, to watch exactly the same thing, except its usually made in Hollywood (or Nollywood).

And yet our media often pretends to be squeamish when it comes to blood and guts in the news. There are few things more trite than that message the flashes up before a particularly grisly bit of footage: “The following story contains images which might cause offence to some viewers.” It  guarantees that no one in the audience goes anywhere. Far from this being the socially responsible thing to do, it is a producer’s wet dream; nothing builds suspense like the promise of a little offensive action.

Gruesome images have been in the news a lot recently. Globally, international news outlets have been frustrated by the US government in their bid to get the photographs of the dead and bloodied Osama bin Laden released. The US has refused to release them on the grounds that they might incite further violence and terrorist attacks. This, of course, is nonsense. Anybody who is going to be incited by Bin Laden’s death is already incited; the release of a few pictures will not change that. Also nonsense is the conspiracy theory that they can’t release the pictures because there are no pictures to release, because he’s not actually dead and the US is making it all up (just like it did with the moon landings). Even al Qaeda has admitted he was dead. But how exactly he died is less clear. Was he resisting? Was he armed? Did he use his wife as a human shield? These are the questions that linger, and are the questions the US is resolutely avoiding by refusing to release the pictures.

And in South Africa, a massive controversy broke out over the SABC’s publication of a video showing the death of a peaceful demonstrator at a service delivery protest. Andries Tatane was beaten and shot by police. Crucially, his death was caught on camera and broadcast to the nation. A strangely large proportion of the reaction centred not on the police brutality revealed by the footage, but rather on whether it should have been shown at all. Perhaps it was too disturbing for delicate South African audiences, some of whom thought the footage took away Tatane’s right to dignity in death. This, again, is nonsense. The police who beat him and killed him took away Tatane’s right to dignity; the media that published the video gave him his right to justice. This world we live in is not usually a nice place. Most of the time it’s violent, corrupt and mean, and our news reflects this. All the best stories are the most disturbing ones, because they reveal things that shock the audience into realising that something is wrong; whether it takes words and logical argument to do this or violent imagery is irrelevant.

Perhaps the most famously gruesome footage ever, and certainly in Africa, is the notorious video of former Liberian president Samuel Doe being tortured and executed by a rebel militia leader. Doe, himself not averse to a bit of torture and execution, can be heard begging for mercy as his torturers joke and drink beer at the edge of the shot. When released, excerpts of this footage were broadcast around the world, and stills were published in most major newspapers. For years, the video was a bestseller in the fake DVD stands in Freetown, although now they tend to be sold only to curious tourists (the locals having seen more than enough). No one debated the fact that people needed to see the video, as it provided incontestable proof of gross violations of human rights. And, of course, everyone wanted to see it; there’s nothing like a dictator’s bloody end to boost ratings.

People enjoy a bit of blood. It’s in our nature and has been for thousands of years. When that blood tells us something we did not know before, then it is unquestionably the prerogative of a free media to publish the evidence, no matter how gruesome the video or pictures. The media does not exist to protect the sensibilities of its audience, but to challenge those sensibilities, and a media that does not do so is failing in its responsibilities.

So, as painful as it will be to watch, when another citizen dies in a protest or another famous figure bites the dust, on camera, the media must be allowed to publish the footage and should be encouraged to do so. After all, censorship does not come only from governments and leaders. Societies can sometimes censor themselves by enforcing conventions which ultimately prevent freedom of speech. The US government is using just such a convention – the one which says that audiences should be spared gruesome images – to prevent the release of the photos of Bin Laden’s death, photos which may incriminate them in some way.

So, next time those warning messages come up on your screen – “The following images may cause offence …” – remember that watching a bit of real-life blood and guts is an important contribution to the protection of our media, and usually a sign that journalists are doing their jobs well. FAM