There has been much debate as to whether media outlets were right to publish graphic images and video footage of the horrific scenes from Woolwich.
The brutal killing of British soldier, Drummer Lee Rigby, 25, on the streets of the capital was shocking enough, but the fact that we were able to watch a video of the alleged perpetrator telling us why he did it, with a meat cleaver in his blood-soaked hands, rammed home the reality of what happened.
According to MediaGuardian, Ed Campbell, the news editor for ITV News, was the first journalist to speak to the man who filmed the footage.
The witness showed him what he had filmed on his BlackBerry shortly after the attack. Campbell jumped into a taxi with the film-maker and raced back to the ITN newsroom at Gray's Inn Road in central London, about 11 miles away through dense traffic.
The pair are believed to have arrived back in the office shortly before 6pm, as reports that the incident was a terrorist attack began to gain traction. The footage was "ingested" into the ITV News production system by 6.04pm and 26 minutes later aired on its evening news bulletin, strengthening the perception of the incident as a possible terrorist attack.
The decision to broadcast was taken by senior ITV News executives who weighed the "editorial, taste and legal" implications.
An ITV News spokesman said: "We carefully considered showing this footage ahead of broadcast and made the decision to do so on a public interest basis as the material is integral to understanding the horrific incident that took place.
“It was editorially justified to show such footage in the aftermath of such a shocking attack, and we prefaced it on ITV News at 6.30pm and News at Ten with appropriate warnings to make viewers aware in advance of the graphic images about to be shown."
But were they right? Did they step over the lines of taste and decency in broadcasting it in their early evening bulletin? After all, many parents would have been watching with their children, no doubt leading to some difficult conversations from inquisitive kids.
At the time of writing 800 complaints have been made about the airing of the footage. And it split broadcasting chiefs too, as the BBC ran it after ITV but Sky refused on the grounds of taste and decency and the fact that it could provide a potential platform for terrorists.
Although I am sure if Sky had obtained the recording first, they would have run with it.
For the record, I believe the decision to broadcast was the right one, one hundred per cent.
Judgement calls are made every second of every day in newsrooms, often under intense pressure and sometimes with seconds, rather than minutes, to spare.
And, as you can see from above, it was in this environment that news chiefs at ITN took the bold decision to lead with the incredible recording.
Yes it is graphic and yes by broadcasting it the media can be accused of giving people who commit such acts the oxygen of publicity.
However, I would argue that they didn’t have a choice - they simply HAD to broadcast it.
Making sense of tragedies, disasters and other newsworthy events is what reporting is all about. The alleged attacker provided some amazing insight into why he is believed to have done what he did. It offered up reasons behind the attack, however graphic it helps us to begin to understand why it happened.
So, it follows that newspapers also had to publish the graphic images too and put the video online. This is a view supported by leading media commentator Roy Greenslade.
The images were quickly shared across the globe through a variety of platforms including YouTube, Twitter accounts, Facebook pages, reddit and Tumblr.
South London rapper Boya Dee’s live tweeting of the unfolding events went viral and proved vital in piecing together exactly what happened in the minutes and hours that followed.
It shows how new technology and good old-fashioned journalism are able to combine with extraordinary results. However, having a smartphone and recording an event does not in itself make us all reporters now.
Rather, it makes us better eye-witnesses. Being a good journalist is something else entirely.