It’s fascinating to think that most people who run through the news in newspapers, magazines, or online articles are most likely to stop on something with an interesting image. Even if the image is graphic, obscene, and hard to process, they still find it appealing, and are likely to read further to understand what the picture is illustrating. At least, I know that that’s what I would do. I have a strong gut, so looking at an image of a dead person won’t make me distraught, but would actually attract me to the article.
Some might go on to say that it is possible to describe the situation without providing a picture, and that it makes for a less graphic site for those with a weak stomach, but will those people actually stop through a newspaper and read that particular article? The answer most likely is a no because unless the title is clever enough to grab their attention, there is nothing else stopping them and screaming, “Hey! Read me! Read me!”
Our fast paced, typical Americans are so used to skimming through to only find the interesting and relevant things in life, and the journalists who write the news are paid to sell the news. They have to find ways to get those fast paced Americans to find what they write interesting and relevant, and they will do whatever it takes within the realm of their own ethical codes. Those stringent mindsets that don’t agree with the way journalists handle the release of their information are stuck in their ways, and will be hard to please, but the truth is, they still find the time to be bothered by that particular article, whether there is positive or negative feedback.
Now, to get down to the bottom of the question posed by my title. Is it essential to be graphic? In terms of news articles, perhaps it is in order to grab the attention of its readers, and to relay the truth of what the situation is.