Photojournalism Ethics

Morals are absolute, a firm line between right and wrong. Ethics are not necesarily the same thing, as they usually deal with emotions and making offense. The moral is firmly, "It is wrong to lie," But the ethic that "It is wrong to manipulate a photo" is not so clear-cut.
Situations change all the time - that's what makes them situations. If a photographer changes their rules according to circumstances, they're not really rules, just whims of whatever would be right at that moment. Right and wrong aren't really right and wrong if they're always changing, and rules aren't rules if they're changing too.

A photograph captures reality in the sense that it shows the exact positions of things and people at a precise moment. However, it does not always tell the whole story - someone with an angry-looking face could actually have a stomacheache or something, while the photograph may make them look like they're full of hatred.

As a photographer, I've "edited" reality by altering the colors in a photograph to make it look, well, cooler. As the photos were intended to be artistic anyway, and not representations of a true moment, it's perfectly okay. Cropping photographs is the way I've altered photojournalism photographs, but only to cut off empty space, not other people.

Newspapers definately should have absolute rules regarding photomanipulation because, being an organization, they have a lot of responsibility. As there are a lot of people who will view their photos, people need to know they can count on the newspaper's unwavering credibility that the photograph is real.