ILL-frustration

I just opened YNET to discover once again that the local online press seems to think its readers so amazingly stupid that we’re incapable of understanding a sensational article unless it’s illustrated with a “victim.”  This is especially true when it’s of a sexual nature and a female is a victim whether it’s a rape or a molestation etc. though it’s done in other situations as well. 

The headline this time was about a rash of pedophilism taking place down south.  Next to it was a picture of a little girl in a playground.  In many cases these pictures have “illustration,” and sometimes even “picture not related to article” underneath it.  This time it was the main story on the main page and the only way to know in this case that the pictured little girl was not (thank goodness!) an abuse victim is if you happen to run your mouse over the picture (and even then it doesn’t have the disclaimer – for all we know maybe this is an abused child being used as an illustration - that’s what we’re supposed to presumably believe).

Why?!  No, my question isn’t why they’re not using a picture of an actual abused child.  My question is why they need to use a picture of a potential victim at all!  Do they think that without it the readers will be sitting around saying “a child, a girl…now what’s that?  I can’t seem to remember what one of those look like.  Oh one of those – like in the picture!”  Anyone incapable of figuring out what a child in a playground looks like to the extent where they need a child’s picture in order to understand the article  probably lacks the intelligence to understand 3 words put together let alone a whole article.

If you must have a picture because today’s online journalism demands accompanying pictures then take a picture of an empty playground, or of police consulting (to make us think of police trying to figure out how to catch these guys).  What is the point of showing a picture of an unconnected child unless they either think their readers moronic.  Unless they’re using her as bait to appeal to the pedophile community to read the article…?