Wikipedia says [0] it's rue Saint-Maur-Popincourt, and from this article [1] it says it was taken from 92 Rue du Faubourg du Temple. Going there with Google Street Maps and rotating to look to rue Saint-Maur, seems feasible.

--

  0: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Barricades_rue_Saint-Maur._Avant_l%27attaque,_25_juin_1848._Apr%C3%A8s_l%E2%80%99attaque,_26_juin_1848.jpg
  1: https://www.unjourdeplusaparis.com/paris-reportage/premiere-photo-barricade-histoire

Thanks for that link.

I've seen this photo before but never with any historical context, other than its significance as a photography milestone.

That site explains the context of it as a news photo relatively well.

RE ".... the Wall Street Journal famously had no photos long into...."

Made me think of how I dislike articles, " often from newspapers " that seem to add (often several) photos only weekly related to article content when in my opinion only a few ( 1 or 2 ) are useful. I use a Image on/off extension, and only load images when I'm reading an article and it seems "... interesting enough ..." A side effect of such a browser extension is it reduces PC .resources. I also sometimes save a page with out images ..

If we could get rid of useless stock photos, the world would be a better place. An article about headaches doesn't need a picture of someone with a headache. WE KNOW WHAT A HEADACHE IS. An article about someone arrested doesn't need a picture of a generic crime scene. An article about Facebook doesn't need a photo of a monitor at an angle showing Facebook.

But apparently it drives engagement because people can't sustain their focus on text-only media?

Cook’s Illustrated continued to have black-and-white photos in the inside of the magazine up until the late 2010s.

It seemed to be a stylistic choice that kept the focus on the cooking lore and knowledge rather than making the magazine about food porn. Their “cooking tips” section continues to be drawn in pen-and-ink style.

Without researching, I would say the 2000s. They held off for a long time. As you suggest, it was a somewhat stodgy paper for ages that didn't really need photos prior to getting into more "lifestyle" and such topics later.

They say it was likely an "inked engraving", not a halftone. Presumably created by hand. So it a bit debatable whether we should call it a photo or just an engraving, made from a photo reference. (We wouldn't call an oil painting a photo even if it was created from a photo reference.)