You have got to be kidding. I've seen all 3 pictures (the 2 originals and the final copy) and the soldier is made to appear to be threatening and yelling at the guy with the kid in his arms, when in reality that is nowhere close to what was happening. This is beyond dishonest; I would go so far as to say this is treasonous.
The left is eating itself alive over reports that not only are our troops going to extremes to limit civilian casualties, indeed suffering casualties because of it, but that the Iraqis are becoming unafraid enough to actually start displaying gratitude. It completely erodes the left's position that we are an invading force and that the Iraqi people hate our guts and will fight to the last man. This reporter is a piece of sh*t lefty that thinks there is nothing wrong with altering the truth to support the 'correct' viewpoint. He is probably an elitist snob who thinks he was doing a great service to the stupid, ordinary people who read the paper and don't have his wisdom to see things as they truly are.
Sorry for the diatribe, but I've been spending some time lurking at DU over the course of this war, and with a few exceptions, it has become a refuge for the most pathetic group of closed minded wack jobs that must exist on the planet. The most pathetic part is their fundamental belief that they represent mainstream thinking in America, and they view themselves as 'crusaders' (they'll hate that word) who must enlighten the unwashed masses. There will be many comments over there supporting this reporter as a hero.
No, I'm not kidding. If the two original pictures do not make the soldier look threatening, then the composite most certainly doesn't.
This knee-jerk hyperventilating does nothing but make us look petty and reactionary. The guy did this to enhance the composition of the photo, not to commit treason.
(By the way, this was a photographer, not a reporter.) I think that once we agree that it's wrong to combine photos, the question is was an effort made to portray the soldier (British?) in a bad light. My answer is definitely "no."
So the guy is yelling. I think it was made clear in the printed newspaper he was trying to get them to take cover from Iraqi fire. Nearly anybody would understand yelling is appropriate in that situation.
You say that in the final version he appears to be threatening the guy with the child in his arms. I say instead that it's less likely he's pointing his gun barrel at them.
I think some people on this thread need to take a few deep breaths and not immediately conclude evil was intended just because an altered photo appeared in a liberal newspaper.
That was exactly my impression of the doctored photo before reading any comments. At first glance until you read the caption, it looks like the solider is threatening the man and his child.