And way before that, newspaper archives are full of prints that have been painted on and over, with airbrush and otherwise. Most of what I've seen was done to improve definition or to separate subject from background, but I did see a baseball moved closer to the batter in a sports pic, it didn't fit the crop they wanted, which was still there in grease pencil, as was the original baseball as it was captured on the neg. I think in some ways ethical codes have become more strict, or at least more clearly defined.
I think in some ways ethical codes have become more strict, or at least more clearly defined.
Where it came from and when it entered American journalism, I have no idea. 19th century papers were usually organs for one political party or another with as much or more twisting of truth and outright lying as inflicts us from cable TV and the web now.
Reading those comments it seems like some people want it both ways. They complain about distortions in verbal (TV) and written news reporting while at the same time defending what the photographer did. No wonder our leaders seem so confused!
But the photojournalist was editing the photos to be beautiful for our good! We don't want to see the world as ugly. What's wrong with Disneyfying everything? Reality is so harsh. The photographer is doing us a favor