The two images below depict the famous photograph of the Kent State University massacre. The first photograph is the "original"; the second has been retouched: one of the fence posts was removed from the photograph to make it more aesthetically pleasing. The second photograph was the one that first appeared in the media.
In some cases, the blood on the ground (on the pavement beside the curb, just behind the crouching young woman) was also removed from the photograph, depending on how the photograph was being used in the media.
Photographs are, in some way, always "manipulated". For this kind of photojournalism, with the removal of a fence post and blood, does it alter how you "read" the image?