Here we go again...
OK, I won't belabor the point of image manipulation in film days; enough had been said here already. But take a minute and think about the other side of things.
Look at the article itself, for instance. First paragraph:
Calling it “a totally lying experience”, McCullin, famous photographer of war and disaster, says
Then, in third paragraph (which BTW can be totally missed by people who only have a brief look at it and then rush discussing in on a forum):
digital photography can be a totally lying kind of experience
See? To say the least, not exactly the same, aren't they? A bit less words, a bit more controversy (which sells).
The same applies to PJ: speaking of the information it conveys, the difference it makes, even simple framing (i.e. picking the subject, selective inclusion/exclusion, etc.) is so much more powerful than image manipulation in post, that there's IMHO no comparison. Let alone I'm yet to see a photojournalist who has only seen the picture from only one side of the thin red line and provided an "objective" report.
My favorite example is this: whenever BBC documents elections in Russia, on their English web site I almost invariably see images of soldiers (young conscripts) or elder women casting their votes. Interestingly, on their Russian site you wouldn't see this sh!t: there are images of young happy families and such. But for a Western reader the picture is "clear": only the military and elder people still support those who, unfortunately, usurped the power.
I have every bit of confidence that BBC adheres to the highest standards, and holds highest possible moral ground when it comes to [digital] image "manipulation", but
does it help?? Nope, not even a wee bit.
So... I'm sure (based on comments made here by Rob et. al.) that Don McCullin is a great person and photojournalist of even greater integrity. But his blank statements like "the inherent truth of photography" make backlash not only inevitable, but IMHO deserved.