http://blogs.reuters.com/gbu/2010/06/07/cropped-photos/

I would think the knife a �peace activist� was holding over a wounded Israeli soldier would be part of the news context.

Not only this story but the discussions that have come up here before about editing editorial. Someone asked why I didn't clone out a fence on the edge, in a shot of a race. Well, for art, yes I can, for news, no I can't? 

But Reuters seems to run into this kind of marginal activity again and again. This one they got caught and pulled the photos, calling it inadvertent. HA!

Maybe not off topic now that Micro is accepting news, but maybe a better place for it considering it's about photo ethics?

There is nothing wrong with cropping in news pictures...

I'd be careful with that one. If "unnecessary" details are cropped out like too much sky or "fixing" bad composition is one thing.

To leave out essential details that actually were captured is falsifying content.

The journalist or photographer judges what essential is. After all, the picture is his or her subjective view of the scene, like it or not. Yes, that is manipulation, but that's why I said it is problem with journalism in general.

I understand what you are saying - however a serious journalist who tries to capture the scene as a whole so the audience can understand the circumstances should also be respected. I mean, that if the entire shot captures critical or journalistic important information it should be included and not cropped out.

If some people like it or not is a whole different animal but as a photographer I'd be quite upset if my images get chopped up considering the circumstances they were taken.
Furthermore the public does not get "the entire picture" which could lead to a massive misdirected public opinion. 

In short, IMO it shouldn't have been cropped.

A photo is a very small moment in time . . . there's a lot of context and sub-context we, as viewers, can't assume from looking at an image.

Looking at the images in questions, I am careful not to assume too much.

For instance, where did the knife come from? Who's knife is it? Where was that knife 30 seconds prior to the image being capture? What about 5 minutes prior to the image being captured?

Right away, I can think of at least two possible, logical explanations for someone to be holding a knife in that particular scenario depicted in the images.

One involves having the knife and using it in an aggressive manner . . . that other involves recovering the knife and just holding it. Do we REALLY know what happened? No. I would like to read the original cutline that accompanied the image from the photographer.

We all must be careful to jump to conclusions . . . . editing an image happens the moment a photographer picks a camera and lens, and continues to happen on its route to the viewer. Unbiased news reporting is a fallacy. As a news reader, I must be aware of where my news comes from, because EVERY news provider has its own bias.

I admit I know nothing of Reuters past history, or of their current agenda. One could replace Reuters with any news agency in this situation.