points us to a story of a West Virginia newspaper that photoshopped three politicians out of a bill signing photo
that ran with a story about the bill. Here's both the original image and the one that ran:
Even the photographer was shocked that his image was modified in this manner. But what's stunning to me is that the newspaper appears to be defending the decision and not backing down:
[The] reason the delegates were removed was due to the newspaper's policy not to publish pictures of candidates running for re-election during the political season....
In the newspaper, the photo caption includes the term "photo illustration" to indicate the photo had been changed.
This is a news
paper that won't run photos of candidates running for election? It makes you wonder how they report on those elections. With illustrations? And then to claim that it's okay to edit a photograph by then calling it a "photo illustration" rather than a photo that's been edited seems a bit questionable no matter where you stand on the question of journalistic ethics.