How can you have an article about how things look without plenty of pictures? This article has one picture at the start to catch your attention but it isn't a picture of anything that's specifically referred to in the text.
I can sympathize with the writer: they're often paid by the word, and finding/producing good illustrative images and securing the rights to them can easily double or triple their work, with no additional pay.
On the other hand, I have zero sympathy for the editor: it's their job to realize the article needs pictures, and pay the writer extra, or pay someone else, to source them!
The publishing industry is just in a very bad place right now, mainly because it's so unprofitable for all but the biggest few players and the spigot of VC money has been turned off.
I'm not sure, but maybe the reason is related to the source of this article (and again, a missing license agreement)?
(Repost of <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30349455>)
A related phenomenon is the same kind of article, but full of irrelevant stock images. (<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37167492>)
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty...
That's a particular extreme example, but Getty are notorious for being sue-happy.