[TomB]

Nope, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and this is the most clearly-definable and therefore best place, otherwise you go straight to the modern American model of a whole quasi-judicial Oprah-like process where a hundred opinions and "feelings" all carry the same weight.

You are essentially correct, IMO. As I said in my first post, he violated a rule, and should be punished. After all, if this kind of stuff is allowed, the paper would lose what little credibility it has left.

That said, looking at the two pictures that were used to created it, nobody can convice me that there is something "anti-troop" about it, and not the other two. If he wanted to create an anti-troop picture with photoshop, he could have done much better.

Actual photos

[SENTINEL]

O'Reilly just reported that the picture was doctored to make it look as though the Brit Royal Marine was pointing his weapon at a civilian !

I'm no fan of the LA Times, but what O'Reilly just pulled is worse. The Marine's rifle is pointed at folks in both pictures, and it should be.

I'm disappointed with Bill, dangit what is it with folks ? They get a little power and almost invariably abuse it. I won't be lied to by reporters, and that includes FOX !

[Anamensis]

I agree, I don't think anything seditious is afoot here, this is just some dork trying to make his photo more dramatic. He took the photo of the soldier which had more dynamic body language, and the photo of the man where his face is showing, to draw interest. Shouldn't have done it, no. But evil plot? No.

[Toskrin]

A good picture makes us imagine a little story in action. In the doctored photo, the soldier is interacting with the standing man in a slightly threatening manner. In the first real photo, they are both reacting to something going on off the right side of the frame. The second real photo may be slightly threatening, butt here's no action - it's a passive photo, so they wouldn't want to run it.