I think we all realize the models in magazines ALL have had processing, in old days we called it air brushing.
Is a bird shot on an overcast day improved by making the sky bluer,
Of course it is. I think most photos we see hVe had some alteration. To the absurd level is cropping now altering the photo and should be disclose and WHY
In a previous post it was mentioned of disclosing if something was altered and who and why when 95%+ have been altered. The artist can do as he/she pleases.

I so totally agree with you, but then I'm from the same background. Those who have never worked in the photojournalist field probably don't understand. I think the issue is the photographer being truthful. I find that when I look at a spectacular shot and think that it was captured as is by the photographer, I immediately want to know how s/he did it, the settings, the perspective, etc. But then I find out it's a composite, and I admit my opinion of the image changes, as well as my opinion of the person posting the image. Now if that person says up front it's a composite (or HDR or whatever other manipulation), then I judge the image on that basis.

Some years back in an art league there was a discussion about a painter. Some claimed that she had downloaded an image from the computer and printed it on canvas, then painted over it and called it an original painting. She claimed she painted it from blank canvas. The harangue over this became a really big deal. I think everyone can understand why. To use someone else's work and call it mine should violate everyone's ethics. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

Cropping and point of view are two ways that photographers constrict interpretation of a scene at an event. What you leave out, or what you leave in, can be crucial to an editorial point of view.

MOMENT is also crucial. If your organization loves a public figure, the images they use from your assignment will show that person smiling, looking confident, looking authoritative, looking effective, looking warm and friendly, etc. Conversely, if the figure is deemed an Undesirable, the moments captured from your assignment will be those that show weakness, stupidity, boredom, angst, worry, shock, disdain...

In short, journalists don't have to edit their images in Photoshop to make a point. They can move around, change lenses, vary perspectives, and wait for a variety of moments. It's what they've always done! Cropping just refines those techniques. Cover one event thoroughly, and you have a file full of visual editorials...

I think we all realize the models in magazines ALL have had processing, in old days we called it air brushing.
Is a bird shot on an overcast day improved by making the sky bluer,
Of course it is. I think most photos we see have had some alteration. To the absurd level is cropping now altering the photo and should be disclose and WHY
In a previous post it was mentioned of disclosing if something was altered and who and why when 95%+ have been altered. The artist can do as he/she pleases.