In most papers it is a firing offense to load any unauthorized software on a company computer. They have access to Photoshop, but only in the office (or at home). Deadlines require most daily shooters to work on their company laptops in the field (i.e. Starbucks) and file electronically.
This is a hot button issue among photojournalists. There is constant debate over where to draw the line. The Reuters case was blatant, but there have been cases in the US among staffers as well. The most famous was the LA Times photog in Iraq, but a photographer from Charlotte, NC was just fired for embellishing a news photo from a fire.
The focus on photoshop really distracts from the bigger issues of bias. Journalists allow themselves to be willing propagandists when they agree with their subjects and only become pitbulls when they dislike the subject. The same is true in photojournalism. The setup shots from Qana are far worse than clumsy cloning -- yet AP, Reuters and other services defend their handling of the hezbollah agitprop photo-op.
Hezbollah stage manages every aspect of Lebanese coverage, yet the debate in journalism is about the ethics of being embedded with US troops.
(HORRID GASH/NO BLOOD-at least they've started plastering the bodies in dust more evenly)
Apparently, others have noticed the similarities in the two photographers' work. The Jawa Report cites these two "different" images by the two different photographers:
Awe heck, maybe it's just a typo...