That's a fair and valid criticism of the way western media is censoring the ongoing genocide. I do think there is some merit in reminding people of the brutality that is being enacted on men women and children. I don't agree that showcasing these kinds of images in this way is the way to go about it. Images of graphic violence can be exploitative, they can be voyeuristic and serve actually to dehumanize victims rather than humanize them. I think photos of survivors with wounds, people being taken to hospital, and the ruins of the area left behind are important and should be spread far and wide.

I do not think that photos of mangled bodies are worthwhile though. I do not feel that images of horrifically torn apart and disfigured remains serve any function beyond satiating a curiosity some have. I feel the same way about photos and videos taken after mass shootings or other large-scale acts of horrific violence. It's important that people understand what took place, but it doesn't have to be conveyed in this manner.

Maybe I'm being pointlessly moralistic about this, and should feel that so long as it brings attention to what is happening that it is a good thing that I should support. But I don't agree with that at all. I do think it's relevant how we spread information about ongoing genocides and their victims.

It's not on the news. Total silence in Western media.

I've watched videos of it in the past that were posted online. I just disagree that showcasing horrific gore and violence in this manner is necessary. It is necessary for people to understand what's happening, if they don't. But in the aftermath of mass shootings and other forms of large scale graphic violence I don't think it's necessary to showcase images of dead and mangled bodies. It's a kind of voyeurism I personally find distasteful and disrespectful to those that died. Pictures of survivors with wounds, hospitals full of patients. Rubble and ruins. Those things are worthwhile in my mind. But not mangled corpses.