Responding to Ritchin [Chapter 5]

As I began to read Ritchin’s fifth chapter in ‘After Photography’ my mind immediately wandered to thoughts about some of the first war photographers and the truth of the imagery they produced:

[1855, ROGER FENTON, The Valley of Death] - http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/4/33950.jpg
This image was a documentary photograph of the Crimean War that was enhanced by physically rolling more canon balls (than were originally present) into the scene.

[1863, ALEXANDER GARDNER, Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter] - http://photohistory.jeffcurto.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/gardner_homerebelsharpshooter.jpg
This second image was a documentary photograph from the Civil War which was enhanced by physically moving the fallen soldier and adding military props to create an image of more impact.

Photo manipulation (when those two images were created) was not what it is today, yet still those images are not completely honest about the wars they represented. If documentary war photography was not able to tell the truth in the very beginning of its existence, then how can we (in light of the digital, Photoshop, Internet world that we live in) expect them to now? I am not saying that all war photographers/photographs lie, but I am saying that the nature of war photography can be construed on so many levels that it is hard to pick out the images of truth from those that were shot or created with other intentions. Governments use imagery as propaganda, as excuse to place soldiers in other countries, as ‘proof’ of one thing or another. Photographers themselves may manipulate/compose imagery simply for shock value to gain photographic fame. Newspapers may combine text and imagery to tell a good story regardless of what was actually going on at that time and place. Finally, on the most local and accessible level, we, as photographic consumers and internet users, may arbitrarily appropriate found imagery to combine with our own sayings, wording, rumors, etc. These images are taken out of context only to be combined in another which may or may not exist. [I was using just war photography for these examples, but obviously political photographs (any imagery that gets pumped through the media to the masses) occur in exactly the same way]

I have always been torn about war photography. Even ‘true’ images (projecting a people in pain) used to help end a war were most likely used without the consent of those just devastated. Who has the right to photograph humans like such and then exploit them to the world? Why do governments get the right to broadcast certain images to prove why we need to occupy another country, yet will not allow the images that prove at what cost we are there? Why should we as the masses get to see any war imagery - will not these photos be the such a small side of the story yet our interpretations of an entire scenario will be based on those images and accompanying text (which may or may not be true)?

I have too many questions and doubts about documentary war/political photography to be comfortable believing anything these days.