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!

Whilst it probably makes sense to allow certain manipulations to be made, I think in the majority of cases manipulation of photographs by the press should be illegal. To manipulate a photograph and pass it off as an accurate portrayal of the moment is not a practise that the press should be allowed to indulge in.

When a photograph is printed, unless otherwise stated, the vieweris led to believe that the photograph is an accurate depiction. Judgements and opinions can be built based on these manipulated photographs.

A great recent example is the Iranian missile pictures, which were shown to be manipulated to include an extra missile. The photo leaves the viewer believeing that the missile tests were a complete success, and that a certain number of missiles were included. What is closer to the truth is that a number of missiles failed. Giving Iran this "show of strength," with the depiction of a completely successful missiles test, is the kind of silly small manipulations that can flair up problems easily.

It's fraud and not unlike the slant forced down our throats from most media today.

What is amazing is that the press will print pictures and most Americans believe this stuff. Even from nations know to lie and be untruthful.

As long as they have like some sort of insignia that lets people know that the photo has been edited to an extent. depending on what extent should depend on what type of insignia is imprinted on the photo.

There are many aspects of 'news' the 'media' manipulates. Overall the public doesn't question the information presented ; which shows the true 'sphere of influence'. People should create laws to limit the extent many media organizations are going to , for profit .....as the majority of the masses are unaware; first impressions are a b.tch.

To a degree, it should. If the press is manipulating someone's photograph without the consent of a person and harm is being caused, then the press should be reprimanded.

The ethical manipulation of photographs by the press is a complex issue that requires careful consideration. While it is difficult to make a blanket statement about whether it should be illegal, there are valid arguments on both sides. Check this link!

manipulating photographs can raise ethical concerns, particularly when it involves altering images to distort or misrepresent the truth. Inaccurate or misleading photographs can misinform the public, damage reputations, and undermine the credibility of the press. Such manipulation could be seen as a breach of journalistic integrity, as the press has a responsibility to report the truth accurately. Click here for more.