Sorry I don't believe that just because the world has always been skewed by powerful people that there shouldn't be an attempt to try to maintain some type of "truth" in news.

Everybody knows that in a country run by dictators, the news is always bullshit. Everyone knows that in a country that was democratic and is turned into a dictatorship the first thing they seize and control is the news media.

We probably agree that in a democracy a well informed electorate is vitally important and the "news" is almost always the way that happens. The media has probably always been controlled to some degree but most people have BS detectors and at least search for "truth" and authenticity in some way.

In the US and most western countries the new media is given great access to power to ferret out the news/truth and it's pretty well agreed that this is important and necessary. And we go after them when they fail us. We even use terms like "who do they think they are? Woodward and Bernstein", when a reporter is like a terrier on a story.

We blame the media for the "yellow cake" story and we blame the media for the "incubators in Kuwait" stories that they foisted upon us which both turned out to be false and partly led the US to two different wars in the middle east.

So to me, "truth" is important, and for that reason I think that control over manipulation of photojournalist submissions is pretty vital due to the impact of what visual images have on us. And how some people here see this as an analog vs digital debate is beyond me.