[pwg]

> Having no map is weird.

Yes, a failure of both the journalist and the editor.

Sadly, this kind of failure is all too common. I encounter articles that often omit a photo of the "thing" the article is describing. This (no photo) might have made some sense fifty years ago in the heyday of paper print where including a photo was much more work. But today, for HTML publishing, it is just an indication of failure on the part of the publisher.

[SoftTalker]

50 years ago was 1976. Pretty sure there was no particular problem incuding photos or illustrations in paper journalism at that time. Maybe for very low-budget newsletters it would have been.

[bluGill]

That depends. For the most modern presses (1970s modern) it was no problem but many small newspapers still used the linotype and a press that couldn't handle pictures without much effort.

[kaptainkaveman]

I think USA Today (1980) was considered repulsive not just because it was colorized and a newspaper but simply because it put more space/resources into illustrations than was considered tasteful. A typical paper would reserve photographers and illustrators for front page and significant stories.

[bookofjoe]

Not everyone considered it “repulsive” — it was quite popular!

[steanne]

i see the opposite a lot, too, though: articles that don't need a picture but have some marginally-related stock photo tacked on just so there's a picture.