It would be correct, except (like in this case), when an image implies to chronicle an actual event. Mind you, Ethiopia and Harlem are not neighbors.

To quote Slate, “That Nature Medicine’s image-pickers equated neglected Ethiopian orphans with HIV-positive foster children in Harlem (some of whom were Hispanic, by the way) reveals this disquieting tendency.”

The story is about “…the politics of medicine, and about HIV dissenters.”

Furhtermore, “The Nature Medicine report is about a major media organization apologizing for distributing inferior work…” (Referring to BBC’s apology – Slate obviously is not trying to hit below the belt on this one, maybe a little loud singing — wake up call — to all of us).

And finally, “The image chosen conveys nothing about those complex topics. Instead, it reduces the rich topic to a shocking tableau depicting neglected black toddlers.”

Peace

I don’t think the validity of the story can be questioned just because the author/designer decided to use royalty free stock photography.

images are used real or abstract or symbolic or not related to reinforce rhetoric or story…

Slate is trying to hit below the belt on BBC.

My 2 santemoch!