Thank goodness you're showing a concern for these matters. In this time of lying politicians and news media reporters we're all badly in need of reporters who have some sort of moral compass, as opposed to those who have sold themselves out for financial gain or career advancement.

Hopefully your teaching will focus on the role of intention, which is highlighted by the difference between documentary and journalistic photography. With documentary photography the intention is to be as accurate and as factual as possible. With journalism, the intention can include doing things for dramatic effect, and in that context a bit of exaggeration may be seen as acceptable. However, the intention should never include the desire to deceive or mislead. If we see exaggeration as being acceptable it would be very easy to start seeing all truth as being open to "interpretation", where interpretation means manipulation, and in the absence of ethics, manipulation can easily turn into deliberate misrepresentation.

The truth is rarely absolute and in that sense there's usually some leeway regarding how the truth is interpreted and represented. However, intention is a less grey area and if we are to be honest, most of the time intention is fairly clear-cut and unambiguous. For example, the intention to exaggerate for dramatic effect is distinct from the intention to deceive.

So what's the difference between exaggeration and deception? That's where the question of ethics comes in, and the bottom line is that ethics is a matter of conscience. Hopefully you will be teaching your students that it is a journalist's responsibility to report truthfully because we the public are entitled to know the truth. Any journalist not reporting truthfully isn't just betraying their own conscience, they're also betraying the public.

That also applies to any newspaper/news channel that they are working for. There may come a time in their future when your students have to ask themselves if they are willing to work for an employer who is pressurising them into being deliberately deceptive. The question is, do they want to become a vehicle for the truth or for deception and lies. If the latter is the case I would say that they shouldn't be in journalism.

When the news agencies themselves are willing to perpetuate deception we should always ask ourselves what the agendas might be. We should also never underestimate how potentially damaging things like fake news are. Whatever form it takes, deliberate dishonesty in the public domain is almost always undesirable and damaging.

Hopefully you will be instilling in your students not just a sense of ethics but also a sense of responsibility. Thank you for your concern in these matters.

The ethical questions you raise are significant. I wrestle with, I think, a bit less esoteric issue. I may be secure in the knowledge that I have a “legal” right to take a photo. But how do I measure whether the distribution of the photo may be an “abuse” of my right?
Taking pictures of children without consent of a parent. A picture of a dismembered body caused by an auto accident. I guess my dilemma really has less to do with “taking” the photo and more to do with whether the sharing of the photo might be an abuse. How would I feel if it was my child or my relative? How does one balance the”great photo” with the intrusion and emotional impact of offering publication of a fellow human. A mountain will not be “hurt” if a photo is taken. But does a photo of another person ever create an ethical dilemma regarding its publication?

1. If the photograph is to depict the size and nature of the crowd it doesn’t matter how it is accomplished if all methods give basically the same info and impression. The differences in “optical compression” need not falsify anything unless skillfully intentionally manipulated to deceive.

2. Technically the dynamic range ability of the photographic system forces a degree of “artistic interpretation” onto photos of weather and sky. Therefore all possible images are illustrations. The rendering that best supports the message of the reportage is the one to use. If the article warns to stock up your emergency shelter then the most threatening rendering is justified, etc etc.

That is exactly what is wrong with the media. I don't want them to exaggerat things to try to get me to take action on whatever they for some reason decided I should spring into action on or for. Just the facts without the personal opinion or creative editing trying to get me to agree or disagree it purchase or protest. I'm well over a half century old. I prefer to make my decisions based on simple facts. Nowadays it's so hard to get this that a correct decision is very tuff to make. Just like the George fellow the police killed. What are the simple facts? Did he comply with police request? Did the police make request ? Did he have a history of criminal activity ? Did the officer have a history of discipline issues? Walter Cronkite is rolling in his grave next to Paul Harvey. The internet is no better. Ok I'm done sorry for the rant.

That is exactly what is wrong with the media. I don't want them to exaggerat things to try to get me to take action on whatever they for some reason decided I should spring into action on or for. Just the facts without the personal opinion or creative editing trying to get me to agree or disagree it purchase or protest. I'm well over a half century old. I prefer to make my decisions based on simple facts. Nowadays it's so hard to get this that a correct decision is very tuff to make. Just like the George fellow the police killed. What are the simple facts? Did he comply with police request? Did the police make request ? Did he have a history of criminal activity ? Did the officer have a history of discipline issues? Walter Cronkite is rolling in his grave next to Paul Harvey. The internet is no better. Ok I'm done sorry for the rant.

As I've commented a couple of places here, I will be teaching basic documentary photography, photographic editing, and journalistic photographic ethics to about 130 high school juniors during the first weeks of school as I substitute for a teacher who is having bilateral knee replacement. She is planning on my being there for two weeks of classes (a little longer than that on the calendar, including some days off)...I think it may be longer. The context is that these kids will be organized into 10-12 teams, and each team will producing an 8 page newspaper from scratch...researching, writing articles, editing, creating accompanying art work, typesetting, and publishing the paper. Actual printing will be done by a company that handles that function for several local newspapers.

The curriculum and specific basic course content is pretty closely defined, but there is always some time for discussion beyond these basics. I've known these kids for a couple of years and know that a key opportunity with them is going to be having a couple of really good sessions around ethics and integrity. Some of them understand those topics well, but for many of them, continuing to develop a stronger compass will be very important. We've been working on this for a year or so as I have opportunity to be with them, and while they continue to make good progress, their journey is not complete.

My preparations for this are nearing completion, but I'd like to give folks here an opportunity to be part of them. Realizing that most folks here consider themselves as artists rather than photojournalists, I'd like to get responses to a couple of questions to help as we discuss the finer points around making ethical photojournalistic discussions. Most of the discussion will be based around rules adopted by the Associated Press and the NPPA. We'll also look at National Geographic Society's rules. Here are a couple of discussion questions that I plan to use beyond that:

1. It is pretty clear that staging or framing or editing journalistic photographs in a way that distorts facts, like exaggerating or under-depicting crowd sizes, or recreating specific events differently from the way they actually occurred, or exaggerating the size of a fire, or relocating one of the pyramids is not OK. It's not like recreating exchanges of vows or the ring exchange after a wedding service. But the question is...how would you feel if you found that a photograph that seemed to indicate that the photographer was "in the middle of the action" was actually captured with a 600mm lens, perhaps with a teleconverter, while the photographer huddled safely at a distance?

2. Photographs of weather systems can be profoundly impacted by making relatively slight changes in exposure. Underexposing clouds by a single f/stop can, in some cases, change a few fair-weather cumulus clouds into threatening storm clouds. What is the harm in underexposing photographs intended to accompany a news story about a severe thunderstorm, since the ethics rules specifically allow lightening or darkening photographs?

OK. It's your turn now. Let's see what you think.

I think you might need to begin at even a more basic level: what is considered news, as opposed to opinion, polemics, etc. Fewer and fewer folks can knowledgeably make the distinction.
As a newspaper editor for some 30+ years, my bottom line is whether the image in question is an accurate representation of the scene. No matter if is a kindergarten class, a multi-vehicle pileup with bodies strewn about, a protest, whatever. A photograph captures one moment. The next moment might yield a photo that has a much different tone. Sometimes only the photographer knows which one is accurate, if either.
I don't have a problem with basic touch-ups. Spot removal. Slightly altering exposure and/or contrast, highlights, shadows, etc. (used to be called dodging and burning in film days) to bring the scene into synch with what the person might see if they were there. (Even the best cameras and lenses aren't quite as finely tuned as the human eye.)
Where it gets shaky is in overdoing it, either accidentally or intentionally. There was a magazine cover -- I forget which one -- with a photo of a famous black athlete (again, can't remember name) who I think had a somewhat controversial reputation. The shadows had been darkened to the point that he looked quite threatening, clearly darker than the person actually was. Whether by accident or intent, it lent the image a very menacing tone.
Clear-cut no-nos including deleting or inserting any person, animal or object into the image.
Softening the background is debatable. Our eyes don't have a depth-of-field control; when we look at something, it looks sharp (or should!!) and the stuff in the background and the periphery is not sharp. In a photograph, it depends on the settings. But these day, we can also alter DOF with post-processing controls so if there's something that contradicts the "message" of a photo, it can be blurred. Example: A photo of a Black Lives Matter parade with armed, uniformed white militia in the background. Expertly doctored, the tone of the photo could be altered considerably.
In addition to newspapering, I taught college classes in reporting, editing, law and ethics as an adjunct instructor at several different universities, so I know firsthand how hairsplitting some of this is. The fact that you are dealing with high school students is heartening. Perhaps we can help the next generation have a better understanding of responsible journalism, how to recognize it and how to do it!