> If the news is based on facts, then the facts can speak for themselves

Photos, are not based on facts. There is no such thing as a 'neutral' photo - all photographs are editorialized. Timing, framing, composition, lighting, contrast are among the hundreds of variables that contribute to a photo. Most news organisation are well of this and they allow post-processing of photos (to different extents). I would say an unflattering photo goes well with an unflattering article.

If facts could speak for themselves you wouldn't need journalists to put them into words, photojournalists to render them in pictures, editors to package stories, and publishers to deliver them to millions.

Of course it's important for the people in that process to be judicious and scrupulous about their handling of the facts so they can deliver material that provides reliable impressions. But showing unflattering pictures of people found to have done seriously unflattering things isn't some egregious departure from these requirements. Indeed, to the extent that a picture can say a thousand words, it's a useful - and generally appreciated - bit of data compression.

I think it's equivalent to ad hominem, pushing in a direction that should be irrelevant. This example isn't egregious (I didn't have any particular reaction to the picture, personally), but it's unsavory to attempt to build a negative association by spotlighting someone's unflattering physical characteristics.

>If facts could speak for themselves, you wouldn't need a journalist to put them into words.

How would facts speak for themselves without being put into words by someone?

So no photo is the way to go? Unless the article is about taking photos?

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I just took issue with the suggestion that an unflattering picture somehow supports an article about shady business practices.

I don't see the unflattering aspect here, to we want her perfectly done up with makeup and hair? that too would insinuate a disconnect from common people. in the picture I saw my take away was she was trying to explain a situation and nicely at that.

is this all a male perception of a problem they fully do not understand and therefor think they know how its perceived by the opposite sex?

To be clear, I have no opinion about this photo (see my other comments on this thread). * Original commenter highlights their observation that the degree to which a photo is 'flattering' is correlated with the author's desired characterization of the story subject. * Child commenter responds that it is reasonable to attempt to sway the reader's opinion by including an unflattering photo. * I respond that I don't think this is fair.

The question related to gender seems to be somewhat out-of-left-field

The exact same argument applies to any photo: If the news is based on facts, then the facts can speak for themselves. A photo does not support the article if the article is not related to how well the subject takes photos.

My claim may have been somewhat unclear. More precisely... a photo that is intended to portray the subject's physical characteristics in a negative light has no place supporting an article about the subject's non-physical characteristics. Photos are great for adding informational content to new stories (e.g. http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/wabc/images/cms/1408319_1...).

No, but if all you really want to do is add some visuals and show what the CEO of the company looks like, why not just grab the default portrait photo from the company press pack?

And that photo isn't a manipulation? The press kit photos are designed specifically to portray executives in a competent, flattering light. THAT is manipulation of an even more devious sort -- if the company is doing something wrong, showing smiling, in-control executives when that isn't reality -- that's public relations, not Journalism; it misleads the public in drawing a conclusion of trustworthiness when that isn't warranted by the story.