I think the background of the photo doesnt add anything to the image in this case. Its just a tree, some houses and a tower. Plus its blurred also when u check full size. The focus is totally on this girls face and the fence..
I disagree. The power of this image is the starkly focused human surrounded by a cold, institutional setting -- fences in front, fences behind, a tree horribly disfigured by topping, featureless architecture with buildings crowded atop one another and what's probably one of those safe "playgrounds" where children learn to be penned in and not take chances while they are under constant surveillance. And while a tower may be implied, I looked hard and never saw one. The blurring of the background enables it to be correctly identified yet still carry the theme of human hemmed in by faceless institutions.
That's how that particular image plays for me, and to dismiss the background as meaningless is a disservice to the overall image.
I think the message of the original post is to simply think before shuttering. What's the point of the image? Does the background add or distract from the message? A great thing about f/1.4 is it can be used as an instant portable backdrop when needed. But, it's not always needed and doesn't always help the story.
If a picture really is worth a thousand words, I want my full thousand when I create that picture. If I have to show freckles and eyelashes, so be it. If I have to show a teaming bazaar in the background, so be that.
I consider it good personal progress over the last few years that I now almost always screen a scene before raising the camera. I want to see what's in the background and think about what it does to the overall image.