What's a little touch up?

Many of you were aghast at the idea of Reuters using doctored photos sold to them by people who obviously had an axe to grind, and most of you were not surprised when it came to light.
I started collecting a few photos before the scandal surfaced and Reuters was forced to remove all of the photos by the offending "journalist". But what about the every day pictures, not doctored ones, but pictures that have an obvious bias?

Was this Reuters shot of the Vice President taken with the word "retire" accidentally in the background? The shot of the President was clearly unflattering but yet it was published, very disrespectful.

I submit that it's not the blatant forgeries that show the bias, that just shows sloppiness. It's the day to day pictures that tell the real story. To be fair, I also searched Reuters photos of Bill Clinton and lo and behold.... they were all complimentary. What a surprise! No contorted faces or suggestive words in the background. Just a lot of lip biting and adulation. Let's face it folks, Reuters, AP, UPI etc. are all littered with libs and it shows in their reporting. If a picture's worth a thousand words, these suckers write the Encyclopedia Britannica.