This is, in my observation and that of a few others, a serious problem in journalism and serious scholarly work - in which we debate the morality and meaning of

This is, in my observation and that of a few others, a serious problem in journalism and serious scholarly work - in which we debate the morality and meaning of materials without showing examples for the reader to make up their own mind, and sometimes even lacking in a description. However, it's understandable too - some material may not only be too unsavory for the content carrier/publisher, but it may even be illegal in where the content is sold. A scholar working in Japanese Studies on the topic of media and sex was stopped at the Canadian border and interrogated when a search threw up documents containing the word 'rape' on his laptop. Activists, however, may have more leeway. Documentaries on animal cruelty and slideshows from anti-porn activists (to name two examples I'm familiar with) are much less hesitant - their goal is to rouse emotions and face-value judgements, so long as the viewer is primed to interpret the materials in the desired way.