Horrifying, appalling, gruesome – some of the details emerging from the Lauren Dickason triple murder trial are stomach-churning. But does that mean we shouldn't be reporting them?
Even if you don't want to know about it, the trial is unmissable when you're scanning the websites, listening or watching the daily news.
Almost every report starts with a warning that the content could be distressing, and ends with details of helplines.
But critics say the warnings are not enough and the coverage is gratuitous, obscene and salacious.
Documentary-maker David Farrier says there's a delight in the way the facts are delivered on some news outlets.
"Delivering them in a way that's attention grabbing and in ways to gleefully draw you in to some of the sordid details," Farrier tells The Detail.
The sordid details are on high repeat and there just for clicks, he says.
"Some of the levels of detail about exactly what this mother did to her children to end their lives, it doesn't help anyone."
He calls the warnings a cop-out and admits he fell into the trap when he wrote about media coverage of the trial on his Webworm blog. He says the trigger warning is not enough when it comes to some of the detail being reported.
"It think there should be a decision to just not include them because some of it feels titillating and ultimately pointless," says Farrier.
But RNZ news boss, Richard Sutherland says not all news outlets carry the same details and people have a choice about where they go to for the reports.
"There's a media smorgasbord out there and you can binge on the smorgasbord or you can just take a few chips and a few shrimps and regulate yourself to a certain extent," he says.
Sutherland, who chairs the Media Freedom Committee, says coverage of the Lauren Dickason trial has been discussed at a recent meeting between journalists and judges.
He can't report on the details of those discussions but says it was not acrimonious.
"It was a measured and well-reasoned debate about the issues, and there's an acceptance that the media's going to report stuff and sometimes that stuff is going to be really unpleasant."
Sutherland says the judge can make suppression orders in their court which journalists will follow, but editors are reluctant to self-censor.
"If the judge isn't going to suppress stuff then my default position is that media organisations can report what is said in open court.
"Transparency is really important in a functioning society and when you try to take that away, although there might be uncomfortable instances, that is the price that you pay for being in an open society," he says.
Christchurch Press court reporter Jake Kenny explains to The Detail his role as the eyes and ears of the trial as a virtual real time blogger.
Media guidelines impose a 10-minute delay of what has been said or done in court to give lawyers or the judge an opportunity to suppress something that might be sensitive.
He says before the trial started the reporters at court and their editors had robust discussions about what they were "comfortable with reporting".
Not everyone is happy with his blog, he says.
"People have been very positive about the blog but I think the sensitivity of this trial, it's very confronting."
Listen to the full episode for the arguments for completely open justice, versus holding back on the most awful aspects of a tragic case.
Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
