I believe I shoot film because ultimately, I'm interested in straight photography - yet my output isn't consistently 'straight'. There is a conflict for me in wanting to be 'relevant' (to speak the modern language of photography), which I think generally means creating an altered truth from 'raw material', as opposed to the traditional philosophy of realisation of intentions at the shooting stage, in hindsight, as a means to maintain clear communciation and intention throughout the whole process. The end product with this standard traditional ethic seems to present to the viewer a sense of 'wholeness' or dare I say... integrity. I think this is the best model for photojournalism and one that they'd do well to remember perhaps? With the the modern language of photography, I feel the almost subliminal effect caused by the fascination with or indulgence in 'altered truths' can very easily become 'affected truths', causing mixed messages. Post-processing needs to be standardised for journalistic work for this reason, because the computer is where the photographer can very quickly forget his job description. The main reason being, quite simply, is because the computer is primarily a place for entertainment - those expensive padded chairs don't help. Only last is it a place we associate with work and that takes quite a strained conscious effort for some*, who'd rather be watching movie trailers on YouTube and making film posters in Photoshop.
* For photographers I'd say especially because of our addiction to visual stimulation. The computer can be the most counter-intuitive place for us in that way.
Photojournalists should be provided with an automated means to process their work or have someone else do it.