Not for me. I have been using a text-only browser to read the www for over 20 years. The keyword here is "read". I do not need graphics to read text.
Ocassionally I get a glimpse of the type of images that users of graphical browsers would see when reading articles and I am often shocked by how little these images add to the text. In a remarkable number of cases, they are just garbage "filler". As if the publisher was "required" to use some images. Perhaps use of images has some effect on users' response to advertising.
What's more is that in cases of true photojournalism, by a reputable media outlet, where I do want to look at the photos, I often find I can extract the URLs and download the images, for offline viewing, easier with non-graphical clients than if I am using a graphical browser. Viewing images is one thing, but I would not want to rely on a graphical browser for downloading them to view offline.
On today's www, I think graphics are overrated. They have a place, but they are routinely being used in situations used when they are not truly necessary. In a surprisingly large number of cases, they do not add anything except distraction.