Is someone saying that journalists shouldn't lie to "make a story.?"
What a novel concept! But I'm afraid it will never take off.
The newest computer imaging programs have made it quite easy to do fairly sophisticated "modifications" to images, but can do literally nothing that couldn't be, and wasn't, done using photographic techniques before the programs became available. There are vast numbers of "historical photos" that are known to have been altered, and many of them are either not identified as such in the repositories that hold them or in publications that use them. For historical photos there sometimes is an "original" for comparison. For modern snapshots, and for any instance of skilled deliberate modification, it can be extremely difficult to see the alterations.
In most cases, it's just called "processing." In many cases it's a legitimate effort to improve a picture that was defective in some way in the original. (All the Playboy Playmates have been "airbrushed" since the first issue. Many of them needed it.)
In far too many cases, faking photos is done to advance an agenda by creating the appearance of something that never was. Many cases are known. Some may never be found out. In most cases where it's significant a few years later, someone will have opinions.
Legitimate publishers have had access to methods for doing anything that modern computer programs can do for at least the last 80 to 100 years. Some have used it legitimately. Some have used it dishonestly. You simply know (or try to know) your sources and juge their content accordingly.
It takes only a little knowledge and practice to make fairly sophisticated "fake" photos, either in the darkroom or with one of the new programs. The programs smell better, and there's less chance of toxic side effects for the user. For some things, they're a little - or a lot - quicker. There are still some things that are best done with chemicals, or with a combination of both methods. There is nothing new in terms of what can be done, or in the presence of people willing to do it.
Altered images are so common in some fields of "information technology" that the safest course is to disbelieve any photograph unless there is supporting evidence to confirm that the image represents an actual event. If you turn off "Safe Search" and enter the name of any female "public personality" in a Google image search, more than 95% (by my count on a few personalities) of the images returned will be OBVIOUS FAKES. For some personalities, it's vanishingly close to 100%.
It's nearly impossible, for example, to find a picture of Martha Stewart on the web that has not been obviously altered. This includes images used in her own advertising, although there most of the changes are just "wart removal." Several "magazine covers" posted use the same "Martha Stewart face" but have different accessories on the table in front of her. In some cases, it's even a different style of table, but the "pixel blems" in the face are unchanged - i.e. same photo of Martha.
One defense anyone can apply, if it really matters $69(US) worth to you, is to get a copy of Photoshop Elements 2.0 and look closely at suspect images. Even without much experience, you can often see where "effects" have been applied. Becoming "proficient" with the program takes a little effort, but you can do basic "detective work" with little training. With a little practice, it's surprisingly easy to get pretty good at it. Becoming proficient at creating fake images quite obviously takes more than a little effort, since most of the "web fakes" are badly done and still pretty easily detected. And once you've seen "where it is in the pixels" you get better at seeing fakery without computer aids.