I read the New York Times in print and also subscribe to it on the web. I have professional reasons to do so and I’m not the typical subscriber on either basis.
So today, I get both versions, and the lead photo for the print version is a beautiful scarlet-saturated photo of bank notes destined for Libya. Here’s what it looks like: THIS HERE.
Because there’s no info in the print caption about why the photo is entirely red, I actually assumed that it might be a printing error. (Because why would Libyan currency and any associated lighting be red, categorically?)
HERE, in the web version, the paper explains that there are “red in-flight lights”—though there’s no explanation for why the in-flight lights are red, or if that detail has any significance. This is also not explained in the story. And in the print version, it’s not explained at all. You might rationally assume that the entire story takes place on an entirely different Mars-like planet with a very narrow—microscopic, even— color spectrum.
Aesthetics trump story in both situations but it’s most egregious in the print version. Not only does the story not explain, it blatantly misleads. Because it’s a prettier picture.
And really, I don’t care how prestigious the institution, it’s just bad journalism.
Red light maintains night vision.