> Photojournalism has impartiality at its core, not 'neutrality'.
These words are literally synonyms.
> Framing, composition are also aesthetic decisions, not just political ones, and those decisions are made both by the photographer at shooting time and picture editors at publishing time. The point is to draw the reader into the story.
Certainly, but the need for drama doesn't detract from the editorial aspects inherent to those artistic decisions.
> With film, large-scale changes were very hard and almost impossible to do with the original negative or positive, so elaborate printing techniques were considered to be almost entirely aesthetic and artistic.
No, for someone with a degree in photojournalism you're highly misinformed. Basic darkroom work is trivial to accomplish (it's literally taught in Photo 101 courses) and was routine during the entirety of the film era. Up to and including outright manipulation of photographs in many cases.
Famously, consider some of the "unpersons" removed from images of Stalin - although I certainly agree this is the type of thing that should be avoided in works of a documentary nature.
https://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/ca4cecf5-8daf-49fa-93...
> With the advent and ascent of digital darkrooms, manipulation and alteration is easier and harder to catch, therefore the appropriate approach is to respect the original pixels and not change any: the integrity of the picture can never be called into question.
I don't see how that substantially addresses the problem. Retouching is not inherently unethical, and individuals who engage in unethical behavior aren't going to be slowed down by your code of conduct.
To wit: did your code of ethics keep the guy from being removed from that image of Stalin?
> I also have a Masters in Photojournalism and do not appreciate the abusive tone bolted onto the previous comment.
Please don't descend to the level of tone argument. It's a logical fallacy and not constructive at all.