This is one of those questions to which there are good arguments on both sides of the issue. I'll take the position of people not necessarily believing what they hear but are more apt to believe what they see. While I see nothing wrong with manipulating a photograph for clarity I see much wrong with the manipulation going so far as to "recreate" events and/or the faces that may be involved in them. I also believe that all photography should be marked as being enhanced or manipulated (we're not talking air-brushing here) and in what way or for what reasons. While the press takes free rein in their spin on events and people I don't think it would serve the best interests of anyone if imagery were to be a part of that spin!

The news already is known to skew ideas and facts, so changing photos is not much of a jump. Reader beware.

Additionally, it would be difficult to determine which manipulations were legal. Some photo manipulations are to enhance specific items in a photo.

Determining what's actual observation vs intentional distortion is as difficult as figuring out what part of a news story is actually true.