No one can deny the strong effect images could have on people.

No one can deny the strong effect images could have on people. This is the reason why many reportages, whether broadcasted on TV or on magazines, are accompanied by pictures. While some argue that words are more influential than picutres, I, however, side with those who believe that pictures are more effective for two main reasons. First, picutres have a definite advantage of being effective and attractive to viewers and readers alike. Most readers find that visualising events of certain incidents based on what they read could be rather discouraging. Because of the strong impact of pictures, the United Nations use them in their high-profile campaigns against the AIDS and famine in the developing countries. This could also be the reason why paparazzi and gutter press publicize private images of well-known figures on the front of their magazines, which they use as a sales gimmick to increase their revenues, as they know the power of pictures. Another added benefit of this method is its ability to save time and effort. Due to time constraint, many people choose what to read based on picutres. They are doing so as a way of sifting information instead of having to read the whole journal. That’s why portraits are widely used in the broadsheets and tabloids whether on their paper format or on their online websites. Of course, those who say that pictures might be limited in its ability to convey a message are quit correct; but it is equally true, though, that pictures have a stronger lasting impact than words. In conclusion, not only is a picuture meant to attract the audience but it has a long lasting influence on our brains as well. Therefore, I believe that it is more influential than words.