Prompt: more images instead of words in media? News stories on TV and in newspapers are very often accompanied by pictures. Some people say that these pictures are more effective than words. What is your opinion about this?

Readers tend to exaggerate the role of pictures, which has occupied in most news on TV and newspapers. I do not agree that pictorial news can expose and determine the information better than words. To illustrate, I will first describe the prominent aspect of the pictures, and second, discuss its function as an illustration. Ċ It will be vast and unorganized information if all the news arises without distinction, and notable news could not be found even though it carries exclusive information that is worth reading. Therefore, photos or pictures have been becoming an interpretation, which intentionally bloats and distinguishes a story from the news surrounded, so readers manage to discover and read it first. For instance, in the Fox News or the New York Times, the stories contain pictures that always capture reader's consideration prededence the rest of the news. Ċ Besides, photos that included in the report are an adequate implication and explanation toward audiences. They might be able to infer and extrapolate data through illustration in a picture, so the content of the article could be understood prior to the entire story. Some editors or authors prefer to illustrate the content of the report by summarizing, and insert it into the picture as a short brief and introduction, which help them consolidate the prominent of the article. Ċ In conclusion, the images, not only do it expose the news but also encapsulates its content. However, its role is unable to replace words, which are the most inherent part of one story