However:

If the idea of journalism is to present facts objectively and then to offer interpretations and opinions based on those facts, the line has to be clear where the facts stop and the interpretations begin.

It's not photoshopping and other enhancements that I object to, but alteration without a notice that it was done. It's very difficult to have faith in factual presentations when the non-factual slips in at random.

I have similar, though more intense, objections to enhancements in fashion magazine photos and other advertizing, because I work with kids who look at these images as suggestions of how they ought to look in person. It causes them a lot of problems. Kids are depicted as media-savvy. Well, yes and no. They know how to use it, yes, but no, they are not immune to manipulation, and are in fact more vulnerable because of their inexperience and their search for alternative self-definition.

Besides, people say a picture is worth a thousand words, and boy are they right. I have enough reason to dislike Condi Rice the policymaker, and therefore not vote for her in an election, but I don't like to think about her losing an election because she looks "creepy".

All I want is for the public to get a shot at awareness. It's the education thing. To say that people ought to know better is the same as making assumptions that people know how to prepare their children for school. Sometimes yes, sometimes no: it depends on what their examples are and where they get their information. No one has issued a manual or put this information in a mandatory curriculum anywhere. It's folk knowledge, and as such depends on constant repetition from many sources to reach everyone. A tiny caption that reads [enhanced photo] would be a step toward that repetition.

It would also prevent USA Today or anyone else from having to waste time explaaaaaing what happened to the picture. It's labelled, so they're covered. Concealment is no longer an issue. Clumsy things happen. Oops.

People would be amazed how many of the images they consume are not, strictly speaking, actual representations. Would that lead to increased skepticism in taking what they see at "face" value? I think so. Would that be a good thing? Hell, yes.