I've never done this before, cross-posting, the same comment on different subjects, but for me, this is an exception, and it goes to the heart of "photo manipulation".

Many of the posters are up in arms concerning manipulation of images in the darkroom or on the computer. But, manipulation is also done by the mere taking of a photograph. While Ansel Adams took great artistic liberty with his negatives, to arrive at a print he felt got his intentions to the viewer, there are far greater numbers of photographs which are manipulative by their mere publication.

In the 1930's, the Department of Agriculture commissioned photographers such as Walker Evans and Dorothea Lange to document the plight of rural America during the Great Depression. Neither Evans nor Lange ran around willy-nilly popping candids of their subjects. Those images were posed and meant to evoke feelings of sympathy and empathy toward the plight of the people on American farms. Just how is that manipulation any less than what Ansel Adams did for his landscapes?

When Eddie Adams' photograph of General Nguyen Loan executing a Vietcong terrorist was published was it pure photojournalism, or was it an attempt to sway public opinion about the Vietnam War?

When Joe Rosenthal took a photo of the Marines raising a second flag on Mt Suribachi, he was accused of manipulating the pose of the Marines who raised the flag. That accusation has been around since 1945, and it refuses to die, even though Mr. Rosenthal stated that he merely recorded the event, and Marine Sgt Bill Genaust's film bears out Rosenthal's version. Did the photo serve U.S. propaganda aims? Absolutely. Was it photojournalism? Absolutely.

So, when we extol the virtues of "photojournalism", don't forget that those photos are also manipulations of the events which were documented.