If you're reporting clear facts about something unambiguously bad, then it's entirely appropriate for the supporting photographs to support the article.
Photos, are not based on facts. There is no such thing as a 'neutral' photo - all photographs are editorialized. Timing, framing, composition, lighting, contrast are among the hundreds of variables that contribute to a photo. Most news organisation are well of this and they allow post-processing of photos (to different extents). I would say an unflattering photo goes well with an unflattering article.
Of course it's important for the people in that process to be judicious and scrupulous about their handling of the facts so they can deliver material that provides reliable impressions. But showing unflattering pictures of people found to have done seriously unflattering things isn't some egregious departure from these requirements. Indeed, to the extent that a picture can say a thousand words, it's a useful - and generally appreciated - bit of data compression.
How would facts speak for themselves without being put into words by someone?
is this all a male perception of a problem they fully do not understand and therefor think they know how its perceived by the opposite sex?
The question related to gender seems to be somewhat out-of-left-field