No, because that’s not how the distinction works. The question is not whether it’s newsworthy, and nor is the question about whether the image and commentary are posted on a profit-generating website; the question is whether the use of the person’s likeness is, in itself, commercial or informational.
In this context, the commercial use of an image, in the United States, generally means that the person’s image (or name) is being used in a way that implicitly or explicitly connects that person with the selling or endorsing of a particular product or service or organization or idea. As the Stanford University Copyright and Fair Use website says, this sort of usage is often referred to in the United States as “right of publicity,” and under this right, a person “can sue if their name or image is used to imply endorsement of a product or service.”
So if you want to post a picture of a person on your blog in order to make some observations about the person’s attractiveness, or lack thereof, that’s informational use. And it doesn’t matter if your blog has ads, or if your comments meet some nebulous standard of newsworthiness, as long as there is no suggestion that the person in question is supporting or selling or endorsing any particular product or service or organization.
If, on the other hand, you post that same picture on a website where you’re selling beauty products, and use the image to suggest that purchasing your products will help people avoid looking like this ugly person, then you’re much more likely to leave yourself open to a “right of publicity” lawsuit.
As with a lot of other areas of intellectual property and copyright law, the lines are not always clear, but the Stanford page linked above provides examples of some cases that have been rules Informational, and some that have been ruled commercial. Here are two contrasting rulings that give some sense of how the courts view these issues: