To Bee or not to Bee

You'd think the photographer would know better. Here's the subject image:
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/02/03/newspaper-photographer-suspended-for-splicing-bird-photos/

Patrick broke a sacred journalism rule.
I was lucky enough to snap a set of photos of a near drowning victim.
Unfortunately, as I snapped my best shot (which made front page of the newspaper) a TV cameraman's head got in between me and the rescue team as they rushed the victim to the ambulance. Photo- http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4409132 I would of liked to of gotten rid of that head but it would of been too difficult for me to photoshop out even if I wanted too.
Happy ending...The boy totally recovered.

It's a "slippery slope" situation. This is a minor case with no real attempt to deceive, but where do you draw the line? With Zero Tollerance at least you know where the line is.

I think it's more of a steep cliff than a slippery slope. Zero tolerance is the only acceptable rule here, as minor as this particular incident might be. That said, isn't firing a bit of overreaction? Are there other disciplinary measures that might have been used?

John, it's a great shot, and you made the right choice. The intensity of the image of the boy and the two rescuers is more than strong enough to overcome the intrusion of the guys's head...

Is cropping allowed? All John's image needs is a bit of cropping from the upper right corner to center the main subjects more.

I'ld like to know the folks catching the manipulations of the egret shot. I mean who looks that close to something like that? I wouldn't have known the difference and I have a pretty good eye.

The unedited first original looks better anyway. Got fired over nuthin.

And John, the head adds action to the photo. Its better than some posed Life magazine/Iwo Jima like staged photo version. And is out of focus to not detract from subject.

Tim, yes cropping is allowed. I tried to find the newspaper to see if they cropped it, but I opened the closet and the stack of newspapers from my freelancing is about 4 feet high. I had to give up. My system of filing is not recommended:)
The victim and rescuers do kind of make you overlook the big head, but I wish it was not there. Forgive me, I was not trying to hijack the thread, just showing an example of a submitted photo that was not altered. The story of the victim and rescue are at my link.

It is not a slippery slope if photographers have integrity. The idea of a illustration is to show what was going on and if it has to be manipulated so be it. Better to manipulate than to infer a lie with a less than good illustration. I always remember the LA Times example when the subject is raised.

Once it's been pointed out that the photo is manipulated, it becomes obvious. The same foreground and background elements in the published photo appear twice, in different positions, which makes it fairly clear that the photographer changed his angle of view before he made the 2nd shot.

Peter