A fellow student posted a link to an article in the Guardian about war photographer Don McCullin in which he states that digital photography cannot be trusted, because of the ease with which you can manipulate a digital file and change the contents. He's also very skeptical about the fact that photojournalism is starting to be looked at as an art form, while he primarily sees it as a 'way to communicate and pass on information'.
I can see his point, but would like to argue that maybe photographs on its own can never be trusted to tell a complete story and give a false idea of experiencing something in a way that is actually very different per definition. However, the digitalization of photography does ask for photographers to be very aware of their possibilities and be conscious about the effects they are adding to an image when post processing.
In a darkroom a lot is happening to an image as well, the same with composing an image, leaving information in or out, the framing and setting the stage. They are all tools with which a photographer can consciously work to influence the narrative.
Brown, M. (2015). Digital images can't be trusted, says war photographer Don McCullin. [online] the Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/nov/27/don-mccullin-war-photographer-digital-images?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other [Accessed 1 Dec. 2015].