During the lecure-'Making meaning from photographs' we discovered that using photographs withing journalism is great, they give out so many different meanings, and making sure the readers don't forget.
Looking at Roland Barthes, a structuralist believes that the 'Indexial' level meant that images resembled objects because they were produced under circumstances that they wre phyiscally forced to correspond point by point to nature. Roland Barthes has published books called, 'Mythologies' and 'Reflections on Photography'.
Images can encourage you to form an opinion of what the photograph is trying to explain/tell you. Susan Sontag says that photographs represent a window on the world. They offer a part of what was there. The newspapers use images so that they have an evidence of what happened or is happening.
Going back to Barthes, he has his own structuralist roots to mention that the press photograph should not be regulated as an isolated structure. He says: "In communication with at least one other structure-namely the text.
Also looking into what Sassure's semiotic approach is to photojournalism. It is 'anchored' by specific textual messages, the readers can be encouraged to view the images in a very certain light. Looking at 'Iconic' images, photographs become more symbolic of a particular event, therefore this will trigger the memories of previous readers and their related feelings and emotions.
Photographs such as the one used on the 'Sun's' website appearing on December 1st would not work without the caption and article below but still have symbolic features. This is because the story is about the teacher who has been accused of insulting Islam. Even though looking closely...aren't most of the Islamic boys named after Mohammed within their middle names? Aren't they contradicting themselves?