Perhaps because of the origin of this post it seems that the focus of the replies,to this point, have been limited to photo journalism. Is this the only aspect of photography that would be affected by Michael's idea of establishing criteria and catagories?
Are the other areas, in which photography is utilized, subject to the determination of the viewer as to the basis of the image and it's reality?
In other words, if I were a novice collector of photographic images should it be up to me to determine whether an image were carbon, platinum, silver chloride contact, silver gelatin or the latest creation of the fellow at the keyboard of his computer and his ever ready Epson printer?
There is one photographer, of which I am aware, that has very creatively labeled his digitally printed photographic images. These were supposedly rendered in camera with conventional film and then scanned, enhanced in Photoshop, and then digitally printed. Is this a photograph or is it not?
I agree that photo journalism seems to have lost it's way recently insofar as reporting the factual basis of the present reality. But I wonder is this the only area which has been affected.