Photo manipulation and ethics

A. Most of the points I read about in this article was that someone removed something or added something in order to push the narrative that they wanted. Like when Hitler removed Goebbels out of that photo or when Times magazine made OJ Simpson look darker than he actually was or when The University of Wisconsin added a black guy in the photo to make there school seem more divers.

B. They don't change the color from the original photo Photojournalists are required to turn in all of their proofs as well as their final portfolio in order for their photographs to be used. 

C. I think what you could and couldn't do in photo shop is different for every one there is always going to be someone who will get offended with something but there is definitely a line. That line for me is if you are changing something and it will change the meaning of the photo i think that is wrong like in the University of Wisconsin photo they added a black guy to make there school look divers i think that that is wrong but if you are just removing some acne that is fineI mean girls do it all the time with makeup y shouldn't you do it with photo shop. 

D. 

  I think this photo was vary unethical. making a photo show diversity were there is none is not vary ethical. Changing any photo to change the meaning and not make shore the reader knows that the photo is face seems un honest and it could cause some problems. If they could not find one photo with a black guy in it then your school is not divers and you should not be trying to portray that it is. 

I think this is the least unethical. when this was edited it did not change the meaning of the photo at  all. I don't find them unethical unless it has changed the meaning of the photo or if it is over done. all they did was make a cool photo with 2 premeds in the background instead of one.