Random questions.

[imayid2]

Lol it's a leading question

Shh. I’m playing dumb 

[biobook]

So it’s totally incidental to the question and you’re just wondering why images add anything to the content of magazines in general?
Is it specifically pictures of men that has you confused? Do you get why pictures of other people/things/places might be beneficial to the reader?

Specifically men.
I understand if an article is about a winding road, and they want to show an image to convey just how winding the road is.  Or if it's about travel to the Maldives, which most people are unfamiliar with, so a picture helps them understand what it looks like. 

But pictures of men just show us that the man being discussed is a man.  What do we gain by viewing his particular eyes, nose, mouth, style of hair or of hat? 

[imayid2]

But pictures of men just show us that the man being discussed is a man.  What do we gain by viewing his particular eyes, nose, mouth, style of hair or of hat?

So same question about pictures of women for the magazines that publish them?

[drosenberg88429]

Why do frum newspapers and magazines include photos of men?  What does it add to the story?

It humanizes them and creates more relatability to the story. Sites, media, and stories which contain images have better reader engagement than text only stories. If there is no downside, why not?


To quote a famous Rabbi, it's a lot easier to answer questions than to answer answers.

[biobook]

So same question about pictures of women for the magazines that publish them?

I'm wondering why the magazines that made the controversial decision to eliminate pictures of women didn't simply eliminate all photos, at least of adults.   For children, I can understand that the value of the picture is for the child, who is excited to see themselves in the paper, but I don't expect most rosh yeshivas feel the same way.

[drosenberg88429]

I'm wondering why the magazines that made the controversial decision to eliminate pictures of women didn't simply eliminate all photos, at least of adults.   For children, I can understand that the value of the picture is for the child, who is excited to see themselves in the paper, but I don't expect most rosh yeshivas feel the same way.

Why do you assume that the images are for the enjoyment of the subject, instead of being targeted towards engaging the readers?

[Dan]

It humanizes them and creates more relatability to the story. Sites, media, and stories which contain images have better reader engagement than text only stories. If there is no downside, why not?

Obvious responses being obvious...
So we humanize men, but not women? What does that tell women?

[biobook]

It humanizes them and creates more relatability to the story. Sites, media, and stories which contain images have better reader engagement than text only stories. If there is no downside, why not?


To quote a famous Rabbi, it's a lot easier to answer questions than to answer answers.

Reader engagement?  Maybe eye-catching, but people will read if the text is interesting enough.

Humanizes?  I don't see it.  The story is about a human.  I can understand if the story were about someone doing physics research, which most of us can't imagine a normal person would do, so you show a photo to make that physicist seem like a normal human being. 

[biobook]

Why do you assume that the images are for the enjoyment of the subject, instead of being targeted towards engaging the readers?

I wasn't making that assumption, I was just pre-answering you if you were to make that argument, by saying that I think it applies only to children.  Frum newspapers often have pictures of schoolchildren, and I imagine the readers (and buyers) are the parents and grandparents who want a copy.

[Yehuda57]

Obvious responses being obvious...
So we humanize men, but not women? What does that tell women?

*If there is no downside*

Now, whether the downside in question is a lack of tznius or humanizing women is the real question 

[imayid2]

I'm wondering why the magazines that made the controversial decision to eliminate pictures of women didn't simply eliminate all photos, at least of adults.

Because undeniably pictures add to the article. And they obviously feel it isn’t dehumanizing to women to stick to the age old sentiment of כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה.

[biobook]

Because undeniably pictures add to the article. And they obviously feel it isn’t dehumanizing to women to stick to the age old sentiment of כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה.

? Convince me.  What does it add?

Obviously I'm not opposed to photos of women, which are in the publications I do read, but what I'm really wondering here is what the value is in the photos of men. 

[drosenberg88429]

*If there is no downside*

Now, whether the downside in question is a lack of tznius or humanizing women is the real question 

How is posting pictures of men dehumanizing women or a lack of tznius?

Whether posting pictures of women has downsides which outweigh the upsides is the age old question, but how does getting rid of men in the name of equality help that?

[imayid2]

Obviously I'm not opposed to photos of women, which are in the publications I do read

So you’re not opposed, but does it add anything?

[drosenberg88429]

Reader engagement?  Maybe eye-catching, but people will read if the text is interesting enough.

Humanizes?  I don't see it.  The story is about a human.  I can understand if the story were about someone doing physics research, which most of us can't imagine a normal person would do, so you show a photo to make that physicist seem like a normal human being.

Do you work in media? The increased engagement which images add is an undeniable fact backed up by all the data. The question of why isn't as relevant as whether this is true or not, and it seems fairly factual that it is.

https://megaphone.com.au/6-scientific-reasons-visuals-increase-engagement/ (I can't believe I actually googled this - it feels like googling a study evidencing that most people are uncomfortable in temperatures greater than 90 degrees and below 40 degrees. It's something which everyone knows to be true.)

[biobook]

How is posting pictures of men dehumanizing women or a lack of tznius?

Whether posting pictures of women has downsides which outweigh the upsides is the age old question, but how does getting rid of men in the name of equality help that?

Isn't it about a 30-year question?  Whatever.  It was in that other thread. 

Get rid of photos of men because they don't add to the story.  I can understand if it were a photo of a man doing something that we wouldn't usually see, so you might show a man who's scaling a mountain or walking a tightrope, which might be hard to otherwise imagine.  But the photos are usually just man-making-speech or men-sitting-in-audience or men-shaking-hands, all of which we can easily imagine without a photo. 

[biobook]

So you’re not opposed, but does it add anything?

I'm not going there.  Not interested in women today.

[biobook]

Do you work in media? The increased engagement which images add is an undeniable fact backed up by all the data. The question of why isn't as relevant as whether this is true or not, and it seems fairly factual that it is.

https://megaphone.com.au/6-scientific-reasons-visuals-increase-engagement/ (I can't believe I actually googled this - it feels like googling a study evidencing that most people are uncomfortable in temperatures greater than 90 degrees and below 40 degrees. It's something which everyone knows to be true.)

No, I don't work in media, unless you count DDF.
You're showing that photos will increase viewership on facebook, tweets, etc, but the frum media is mostly print newspapers and magazines.  They don't have tons of competition, and I don't think they're living for Likes or Retweets.  Yes, readers like to see pictures, but the readers of frum newspapers are used to reading unillustrated texts, and I expect they'd buy the newspaper at the same rate without photos.

[imayid2]

Get rid of photos of men because they don't add to the story.  I can understand if it were a photo of a man doing something that we wouldn't usually see, so you might show a man who's scaling a mountain or walking a tightrope, which might be hard to otherwise imagine.  But the photos are usually just man-making-speech or men-sitting-in-audience or men-shaking-hands, all of which we can easily imagine without a photo.

They usually aren’t just random pictures of random men, they’re usually men being referenced in the article. Undeniably interesting to the reader.

[drosenberg88429]

No, I don't work in media, unless you count DDF.
You're showing that photos will increase viewership on facebook, tweets, etc, but the frum media is mostly print newspapers and magazines.  They don't have tons of competition, and I don't think they're living for Likes or Retweets.  Yes, readers like to see pictures, but the readers of frum newspapers are used to reading unillustrated texts, and I expect they'd buy the newspaper at the same rate without photos.

Did you read the article linked? (There is plenty of competition in the frum media market, btw.)