Sontag's "Reagrding the Pain of Others"

1. Does the value of portraying the true nature of death/war/destruction outweigh the negative response such images can cause?
2. How much should such images be trusted as representative of an event?
3. What are the ethical standards for what should and should not be shown?

I remember, when studying in a history class, I saw a picture of a young Asian child (I believe she was Vietnamese) crying over the corpse of, presumably, her father. The image was so powerful in the raw grief it portrayed that I still sometimes see it in my mind when I think about war. For me, that image forever humanized distant wars as real events with real consequences for real people with real lives and families and hopes and dreams and pains. I think, in that sense, such images are crucial.

At the same time, I can only imagine being that girl, and seeing that photo, and being forcefully reminded of the trauma and loss. I can imagine being someone like her, and being similarly affected by such an image. When I saw the mugshot of teacher who had sexually harassed me in middle school  in the news, my stomach sank and I felt like I couldn't breathe, just from the image. Again, I can only imagine that feeling magnified for the circumstance of grisly death, injury, and destruction. Sometimes, for some traumas, any time is "too soon."

So I'm torn on the issue. I want there to be a way to make real to the world the horrors that go on everyday, so that they would be roused into action to try to prevent such suffering when and how they could. At the same time, I don't want to cause pain to those who have already suffered. I wish I had a good solution, but I don't. I don't even have an adequate standard for how the two aspects should be weighed in individual circumstances. This is an issue, for me at least, without an answer and without a solution.