U.S. President Barack Obama delivers a statement at the White House on the mission against Osama Bin Laden, May 1, 2011. While it’s easy for most to support the downfall and death of terror mastermind Osama Bin Laden, what to do with the pictures depicting his slain body has proven far more difficult to agree upon.

Three days after the May raid that killed the al Qaeda leader, U.S. President Barack Obama announced he would not release the post-mortem photos. The decision was met with mixed reactions, as some stood by it and others called it an unlawful violation of the public’s right to know.

One such critic, Washington-based organization Judicial Watch, felt strongly enough to file a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense, arguing it was being “irreparably harmed” by the withholding of the photos. That lawsuit is still pending.

But beyond the legal and political disputes that continue to rage in Washington and around the world, another ethics-centered debate has emerged within the journalism community about how the Bin Laden death photos should be handled by media professionals.

Several American news agencies—including the Associated Press, NPR and CBS News—have demanded to see the pictures, filing requests under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. Although those requests have not been met, they do raise questions about whether journalists do in fact have the right to access such images, and what’s more, publish them for all to see.

In the case that the Bin Laden death photos are ever released or leaked, these hypothetical questions will demand real answers as journalists decide whether publication is appropriate. To do so, they will have to determine the images’ news value and relevance to telling the story. But it’s not as simple as printing whatever is newsworthy. Journalists will also have to consider whether showing the photos is responsible reporting.

It’s a tough decision with long-lasting implications, and not all media professionals agree on what is ethical and what is not.

According to Pakistan-based journalist and analyst Mosharraf Zaidi, there are only two reservations that can reasonably be made against showing a newsworthy image: law and order and public decency.

“If we know that the publication of the photos would incite violence, or we know that the photos violate a universal sense of decorum or decency, then we would naturally have to pause and consider all the inherent ramifications of publication versus not publishing,” Zaidi told CIME.

But whether showing the post-mortem photos of Bin Laden would pose a threat to law and order is hard to say, especially when no one in the media community has seen the controversial images.

Those who have laid eyes on the photos, including select U.S. officials, have described them as graphic and gruesome. Some officials have said they agree with President Obama’s decision to withhold the photos, arguing terrorists could use them as a propaganda tool.

It’s unclear, however, whether choosing not to show the graphic images has discouraged any terrorist outbursts, Zaidi pointed out.

“In Pakistan, there has been a major surge in terrorist violence—though no pictures have been published. Would this be better or worse if they had?” Zaidi said. “And does this violence—the kind that takes place in another country and not in the U.S. homeland—really figure into U.S. decision-making? Difficult to say.”

While there are many unknowns to think about when speculating about the consequences of publishing, some media professionals are posing the theory that these considerations are beyond the scope of journalism ethics.

Some such theorists argue that the possibility of terrorist violence is not something journalists should have to consider when deciding whether to show controversial photos.

According to Jack Mitchell, University of Wisconsin professor of Journalism and Mass Communication, the media should not be held responsible for public behavior in a scenario like this.

“I don't think the fear of inciting violence or terrorism is a valid reason for not publishing,” Mitchell said to CIME. “The photos merely document what happened. If there is violence and terrorism, it will be the result of [people’s] actions rather than the photos.”

The public’s ability to choose for itself, though, raises another media ethics question about how journalists should respond to decisions made by non-journalists. In the event the pictures are leaked, it is likely non-journalists around the world will choose to share the images, regardless of the professional opinions of reporters.

As the news market continues to grow more competitive, some people wonder whether today’s reporting standards should be altered to accommodate the online realm of citizen journalists.

Mitchell argues no, adding that while non-journalists have the right to publish their own accounts of the news, professional journalists should not feel pressured to reconfigure their own.

“Publication by non-journalists is a fact of life and we cannot and should not hold them to existing standards,” Mitchell said. “That does not mean, however, that professionals should abandon those standards. We need to maintain a distinction between the professional and the non-professional.”

Similarly, Zaidi pointed to the distinction between journalists and media companies, many of which could be interested in publishing the post-mortem pictures if given the opportunity.

According to Zaidi, the strict ethical standards of the media are not necessarily applicable to media companies, who “operate in the pursuit of profits.”

“While [media companies] may nominally adhere to certain journalistic norms, they are not structurally bound to do so,” Zaidi said. “The rapid decline in ethical standards in journalism has as much to do with the dramatically increased competition that exists in a Twitter and Facebook world, as it does with the overarching dominance of the board room over the news room—globally and locally.”

Although some non-professionals and media companies may be looking to publish the controversial Bin Laden photos, it’s up to journalists to make an independent decision about the most ethical course of action. And however they decide—to publish or not to publish—it’s important they decide according to their own standards.

Photo by Pete Souza (US Embassy New Zealand).