It's about selling papers. And graphic sells. But you're right TallG, the trend in the west has been towards the ethics of publishing stuff like that- there are regular debates in newsrooms about whether or not publishing something will help the story or if it's just sensationalism.

For example: after the tsunami I remember a wealth of very graphic images being published- one in particular of a dead childs hand peeking out from under a pile of rubbish. it was sickening, it was disturbing, but photos like that mobilized the world. it had a reason for being published. and it also followed some basic guidelines of effective shock tactics- you didn't see the persons eyes, for example (much like a very famous photo of a man in palestine, holding the body of his son who'd been killed in a bomb blast. the boys body was curled towards his father, so while you saw some blood on the fathers shirt, you didn't see the kids face- just the fathers. it was an example of grief, a powerful motivater, but the focus wasn't on disrespecting the dead child, but displaying how ravaged the family was).

this photo didn't do that- and that's an example of shoddy, cheap journalism. but what can you expect when it's all about the money and not the quality?