It’s actually a very common practice in photo journalism. The AP has very strict
Guidelines on what can and cannot be edited. For instance a photo can be cropped but people cannot be edited out. They don’t allow for a lot of leeway.

The point is that the photog is trying to capture an image that is documentary, not necessarily artistic. Al thought the good ones often do both. RAW simply requires too much editing and allowance for interpretation of the image.

A good example was years ago Time had a photo of OJ Simpson that they intentionally darkened his face with deep shadows to make him look more sinister. There were significant ethics issues involved and they clearly editorialized a photo through editing.

As usual a blanket statement, without context, is not often accurate or helpful. In this case the news agencies need accuracy and raw does not help. In some ways it hinders.

Often field photogs are uploading their pics on the fly. Others may be downloading them, determining what goes to publication etc. in addition They simply don’t have time to mess with each photo. Just like some wedding photogs and others. Time is money. And they’re on a very tight schedule.

I shoot almost exclusively RAW the latitude it provides my amateur skills. The news agencies are trying to achieve the exact opposite. Now if they could achieve neutrality and accuracy in reporting we’d all be better off.

Found this article posted in website petapixel.com. Tis an interesting one fer sure. This is a portion of a letter sent out to their freelance staff. Guess in certain circumstances jpegs still rule!
Quote -

I’d like to pass on a note of request to our freelance contributors due to a worldwide policy change.. In future, please don’t send photos to Reuters that were processed from RAW or CR2 files. If you want to shoot raw images that’s fine, just take JPEGs at the same time. Only send us the photos that were originally JPEGs, with minimal processing (cropping, correcting levels, etc).

LittleRed (Ron)

Reuters is trying to avoid even the appearance of imaging impropriety. Out-of-camera files are less likely to have been modified to remove, move, or add imagery to the frame. Or at least, that's their story and they're sticking to it!

This is a NEWS organization, not an art gallery. They value truth in journalism and journalistic reputation over photo tonality.

Back in the early 2000s, news organizations were ASKING for raw files, or 16-Bit TIFFs in Adobe RGB color space. Professionals were extremely reluctant to provide them. That's like giving your news agency unprocessed film or developed negatives and saying, "Here, do what you like with it."

Sadly, the legal and political realms have more to say about photographic processes than the creative community, where truth hangs in the balance.