He's saying that photojournalism should not be tarted up. And that the first image obviously is and the second looks more like reality. The first like a movie poster and the second like reality, and in doing so, has changed the picture from a reality based news story to an almost reality story.

I probably agree. We've have discussions of photojournalists fired for photo manipulation here on this site and most agree that it is wrong because news photographs should be manipulation free.

This instance is obviously subtle but the author makes a good point because it looks "too good" and because of that not exactly real, and by then you've moved from "news" to "illustration".

Time had that instance on their OJ Simpson cover that some people took to be racist as he was darkened and made to look evil. In doing so they were taking a point of view instead of reporting the news. But that was a while back and obviously standards have slipped considerably in the case of news having a point of view.