If facts could speak for themselves you wouldn't need journalists to put them into words, photojournalists to render them in pictures, editors to package stories, and publishers to deliver them to millions.
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.
I think it's equivalent to ad hominem, pushing in a direction that should be irrelevant. This example isn't egregious (I didn't have any particular reaction to the picture, personally), but it's unsavory to attempt to build a negative association by spotlighting someone's unflattering physical characteristics.
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.