Last month, I was reading up on unpaid intern stories in the media and came across this BusinessWeek article. The first thing that caught my eye once I clicked on the link was the photo it uses at the top of the webpage.
In Journalism School, the Strategic Communication program and marketing conversations in general, there is plenty of proof that images enhance a person's likelihood to click on an article or check out a story. I was appalled when I saw this photo paired with the story on sexual harassment:
It's absolutely vital for publications - online and offline - to use good judgment when evaluating an image to go along with a story. Does this photo enhance reader's understanding of the story?
What does it contribute? What about this picture in particular insinuates interns? Is it helpful or not that you cannot see their facial expressions?
What does it contribute? What about this picture in particular insinuates interns? Is it helpful or not that you cannot see their facial expressions?
As the reader, I was perfectly capable of understanding the situation without this photo. Even if photos increase click-through rates and other key sales and effectiveness metrics, consider the image's value and the purpose of the story. Some serious matters like this don't need to be portrayed visually just to put something there, especially when they don't align incredibly well.
No comments:
Post a Comment