Think about it; when scanning articles on a webpage, which one draws your attention? The story with lovely prose and intricate text description? or the story with an outrageous picture in the top left corner? Of course, our eyes avert to the picture before even reading the headline.
Pictures are great for conveying emotion and supplementing text. Journalists must choose wisely when deciding which picture best relates to the story and grabs the reader's attention.
Below I have two pictures of Taylor Swift from the 2010 Grammy Awards.
Can you match the headline with the correct picture?
1. Taylor Swift on First Grammy Win Ever: It's An 'Impossible Dream...'
1. Taylor Swift on First Grammy Win Ever: It's An 'Impossible Dream...'
2. Grammy Awards Style Stars
Headline #1: Taylor holding her Grammy and shouting
Headline #2: Taylor posing on the Red Carpet
As you can see, the picture on the right carries much more emotion than the picture on the left of Taylor posing for cameras before the show. By simply viewing the picture, readers can sense the tone and predict the content of the article.
The bottom line is that pictures should definitely be used in all blogs and to supplement web articles. Journalists must, however, choose wisely and only use pictures that match the tone, style and content of the story!
Looooved Tay's dress. Hated her whole "I had no idea I was going to win!" attitude. Com'mon now. But on to the more productive comments...I agree with the whole art thing. I'm all about a good spectacle, so when blogs have a captivating image I'm more likely to take the time to read what they have to say. I think blogs that don't have something to break up the writing (be it a picture or a video) have a tendency to look like a textbook.
ReplyDelete...PS--Did you see what a mess Britney was? I smell a relapse...