Shutterstock etc.

Pictures in magazines have never been so pro, so snazzy, so irrelevant. With a few golden exceptions (National Geographic etc.) they are all brought from Shutterstock and their ilk. They fit, but just barely, whatever the column, editorial or whatever was ever about.

How do you explain this 'for whom it might concern'?
That instead of something embarrassingly generic (it grows all the worse when the reader soon sees this photobait in some entirely different context somewhere else) ...they may get something on-the-spot, crafted by hand, -- yes, something locally produced instead of this McEyecandy they've been addicted to?

Now, does this matter? Our little worries, with this world being as it is?

Partly, it does. This Unnecessary Comfort.

"Iceberg ahead!"
Ah, nah, this is a modern ship, just go ahead.

"This beef is produced ecologically, and --"
Pollution schmollution, let's do McDonalds.

And so on.

I could mention various Titanics of the modern mind, but by now I think that you got the point.
Even if you're a lazy Art Director, and an addicted one too.