Documentary and Photojournalism

I found this reading to be particularly interesting. In the "documentary and authenticity" section of the piece, I enjoyed the juxtaposition of several instances, many years apart, where photography was used to either lie or show a subject in a particular way that may not have been entirely accurate. As noted, photography was originally hailed for being a medium that could not lie and one that recorded facts. Even in its early history, however, it was being used to manipulate viewers. E. Appert montaged and retouched photographs he supposedly took of the rising of the Paris commune. Even though they were not very well done, the public still took them as the truth. Photography was not questioned because it was thought of as being unable to tell a lie. Now with all of the technological advances in photography it's much easier to manipulate an image. I have seen countless images in magazines of celebrities who were photoshopped into places they never were all for entertainment value and many people do not question it no matter how ridiculous the circumstances. But on the other hand, with he advances of photoshop many people have started to question the validity of everything in photography, constantly wondering if an image has been altered in some way. As the section points out, photographs have been manipulated since the early days of photography. It will be curious to see just how "authentic" documentary photography will stay with all these new advances.