In the fascinating, on-going comments accompanying our coverage of yesterday's shooting of the tiger in Moorpark, one reader asked that question about running the photographs of the tiger.
"Can you try to not print such awful pictures?" the reader asked. "Why do you print death?"
Photos of death cause the greatest conversations in our newsroom.

I'll admit there was no opposition in our office yesterday when we previewed the photos of the tiger. Most of the photos were taken from a distance, with the tiger being hoisted in the catch-net by the sheriff's helicopter. The photos were not graphic, they were not bloody, they were not gruesome. So they passed all those tests for us. And we probably do unconsiously have different standards for photos of animals than of people.
We have long, emotional conversations at times over other photos that show the reality of death, particularly those of local incidents. Our basic policy is not to show the bodies of dead people. We do break the rule, when the photo might be so overpowering as to tell a story by itself.
But we work hard to find photos that can portray the reality of the situation -- a car accident, a bombing in Iraq, a tsunami in Thailand -- that does not cross that invisible line.
We're conscious of the impact of our photos. But we're also conscious of our responsibility to "tell it like it is" and sometimes that means writing, or showing, graphic material.
Death is news.
But we tread lightly when we enter that territory.
Does that help answer the question?