Kenny Irby's Poynter article on the Madrid photo manipulation has been posted. It's basically a roundup of how different newspapers handled this and other gruesome photos from that day. I must say I'm quite disappointed that he didn't give the ethical issues involved in digitally manipulating photographs more than just a fly-by. And in discussing options open to editors when confronted with graphic photos, he says this:

• Distortion of the picture is another choice. That is, you can subtract and/or add editorial content within the frame of the photographic composition.

After Fark linked to my original Madrid posts, there was a lot of discussion by "normal people" (i.e. readers) in the Fark comments and other weblogs and message boards. Most of them were appalled at the manipulation and said the newspapers should have picked another photo or run the image as it was. They seemed to get that news photographs should reflect the truth. Why can't some "journalists?"

In episodes like this, the trustworthiness of documentary photojournalism is at stake, and I think the Poynter Institute needs to give that a bit more consideration.

>"Beyond Taste: Editing Truth" [Poynter Online]