I agree. This is a graphic and that is their out. Since Mr. Smith has admitted (if I have his latest story correct) that he made a copy of an original then made a copy of the copy and then destroyed the copy of the original (hello?) then why shouldn't reuters have an image made up for "dramatical purposes"?
In reality the caption is correct....mostly. The "...copy of the so-called 'Downing Street Memo' in 2002..." part is spot-on in as far as this is a copy of a copy of a destroyed copy of an original memo and an anonymously-leaked one to boot. As George Carlin once said, before the snarling metamorphosis, "If you break a crumb in half you don't have two-halves of a crumb, you've got two crumbs, man. Something for nothing."
I still have seen no proof that this is an "official original" or whether this a "forged original" on "official paper" or yada yada yada.
The Doctor has done good in as far as Reuters is again snagged in an act of manipulation and, once again and for the umpteenth time, highlights what side they are on.
I did a quick search and came up with this internet forum link hosted by the WP.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/14/DI2005061401261.html
This is from the 16th and therefore is before his admission that he copied the original then made a copy of the copy then destroyed the copy of the original.
It is long but pretty much the past, current, and future hopes of Mr. Smith in regards to Iraq and W are crystal clear. And note that whoever was the moderator allowed in no contrary challenging questions posted by the "guests" just a slew of fellow travelers throwing slowballs into the pocket.