In recent days, news agencies have been using visual images such as videos and photographs to regularly narrate news stories. While some argue for the accuracy that visual images help to convey, others believe that they fail to provide the full picture. I agree with the latter statement and believe that news reports should include both written and visual content.
In some cases, visual images are considered an effective means of conveying accurate information. Firstly, pictures and videos can enhance the visual experience of readers. Images and videos, which are collected from real scenes and show originality, are superior to abstract words that require readers to utilise their imagination to construct images on their own. The second benefit is that visual elements tend to be quite detailed, which allows for a more accurate perception of what is happening. Furthermore, some news videos feature interviews with those involved in the incident as well as witnesses, providing a deeper insight into the causes and consequences of the event.
Others, however, view graphical depiction as insufficient in delivering the full news story. To start with, there are some pictures used in news reports that do not directly support the report’s subject matter. To be specific, some visual images only serve as tools for engaging readers emotionally. In other cases, such as a discussion between two foreign ministers on military and financial strategy, photos function as decorative pieces, which necessitate clearer explanations by providing enough textual details. A further disadvantage of using images exclusively is that it is difficult to illustrate the causes and consequences of some events that span a considerable period of time, which further emphasises the importance of texts.
To conclude, even if visuals play a pivotal role in delivering news to the public that is largely authentic, they occasionally fall short of telling the complete story and make readers confused.
