In this case, perhaps. But what I'm complaining about is much more broad than that: what I see so often in modern "journalism" is they'll spew a bunch of words about something, but photographs of whatever they're referring to are conspicuously absent, or there's not nearly enough to properly supplement the commentary. It shouldn't be hard to take a handful of decent photos and attach them to the article, but for some reason, many articles I see lately just don't have the number of photographs that seem justified. It's even worse these days when you consider the zero-cost of photography. 50+ years ago it made sense for there to be few, if any, photographs: they were expensive to take (film, developing), and operating a camera took some training and skill (you needed a proper 35mm camera for print-quality photos, and a manual SLR isn't something any idiot knows how to use effectively). Now, any smartphone will take thousands of photos, and any idiot can take photos good enough to be printed, so there's really no excuse. And printing costs are zero too: I'm guessing it cost extra money to print photos 50+ years ago in magazines and newspapers, but now it's all digital so there's no incremental cost to include more photos.

And that's just photos. Video is pretty easy and free too, now that we have YouTube.