Iconic WWII photo canceled, then uncanceled

I don't care about the technicalities, I only care about what I see when I look at the image that you posted in the OP. Viewers will form their impression of the image on the basis of what they see with their eyes, not what kind of camera it was, not what different images in the series look like.

The problem is identifying the word 'exposed' with how light or dark the image looks. If an image is too light or too dark it's wrongly processed for its exposure. If the exposure selected fails to make effective use of the characteristic curve of the medium (whether digital or film) it's incorrectly exposed. 'Correct exposure' has a precise meaning, established by Hurter and Driffield. 'Effectively', 'creatively' , 'expressively' don't have any precise meaning, so take them as you like,. though I suspect that they all refer to processing rather than exposure. To me to load everything into exposure seems like playing a round of golf using only the putter. An interesting challenge, but is it worthwhile?

Indeed it does. I guess they've all been framed by the deep state.

I'm trying hard not to escalate this discussion, but you keep on accusing me of dishonesty. Please stop. I'm not pretending anything. If I missed the point it is because you didn't make the point. Let me summarise the discussion as I see it.
i) You have provided two instances where editors/curators have made decisions on the use of images that you disagree with.
ii) We are agreed that the editors have the right to make those decisions, even if you disagree with them.
iii) I have said that I think one of the decisions was a bit silly, whilst the other I can see, based not on how the image was taken but what it conveys to me when I look at it.
That seems to me to be the long and short of it.

I'm beginning to get upset with that. Stop accusing me of 'pretending' when I am pretending nothing. The whole thing is based on your idea that what you are saying is the inarguable truth, so that anyone who argues with it must be pretending. The fact is that most of what you are saying is filled with fallacies, is un-evidenced and is extremely poorly reasoned. When I politely point out where those are you accuse me of dishonesty. That in itself is dishonest.

The fact that the SC wrote that in his report doesn't not mean that he could prove it in a court of law, and I would guess he knows that. In the case the Biden returned the documents when asked, a jury (which is the trier of fact, not the special counsel) would likely conclude that indicated that the retention was not wilful. And in fact if you look at his testimony, that is what he actually says, "We did not, however, identify evidence that rose to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the evidence fell short of that standard I declined to recommend that he be prosecuted." What he's saying is simple - a prosecution would not have been successful, in his opinion. That's how the law works. If a prosecutor doesn't think a prosecution will be successful, they don't prosecute. In the US he has to convince a grand jury before he can prosecute. It's a good system in that regard. As I said, all Trump had to do to avoid prosecution was to hand the things back, first when asked, or if then, when subpoenaed. He was give a long rope and he chose to hang himself by it.

And by the way, you still have submitted zero evidence that the important difference is political party.

When it actually comes to arguing demonstrable facts with real evidence, you've failed completely. All you come up with are conspiracy theories and talking points lifted directly from Trump speeches - even the absurd things, such as Trump had a right to those documents. And if you want to argue that isn't absurd, quote the statute that says that he did.

Sure, Biden makes a lot of gaffes. But not as many as the other guy. Personally, I think you're in for a big disappointment. I'm old enough to remember when the whole echo-chamber was saying Ronald Reagan was too old, making too many gaffes (which he did) and his approval rating was stuck at 39%. The conspiracy theory at the time was that he had dementia and it was Nancy who was really running the White House. He won 49 states in the election the same year.

That's not 'benefit of the doubt. Dishonesty is about the worst and nastiest accusation that you can make. So finish the sentence. See what that does for you. And then, when you stop trying to run this conversation by insulting me, then maybe we can have a sensible one based on evidence and interpretation. Until t6hen, unless you're willing to converse in a civil, respectful way, there's nothing to say.

Accusing me of pretence is exactly the same thing as accusing me of dishonesty. You're not worth talking to. Clearly your idolisation of a compulsive liar has led you to a state where you seem not even to understand the concept of truth. Bye.

It's part of the nature of capitalism. These news outlets are for-profit companies. While the 'cult following' is a significant part of the market, they don't want to alienate it too much. The only difference with Fox is that the cult is their chosen niche, so they don't want to alienate it at all. Of course the problem for them all is that being a cult, everything is binary - you're either totally for them or totally against them, and if the tell the lies that are demanded they get sued to ruination by the targets of the lies. I find the disclaimers on Newsmax hugely entertaining.
The problem for you Marxists is that you don't form a large enough part of the marketplace for any of them to be worried about alienating you, and you don't have any rich corporations to fund the lawyers to sue the news outlets when they tell lies.