Stupidest act of falsification ever!

So apparently some pictures of bombed-out Beirut were doctored before they were sent to Reuters.

The Star has before and after pictures.

What's really sad about this is that, to my civilian and unartistic eye at least, it doesn't change the impact of the photo that much.

My first reaction upon seeing the real photo: "OMG, the whole city is up in smoke"
My second reaction upon seeing the real photo: "Oh wait, it's only coming from that one building and kind of drifting around."

My first reaction upon seeing the doctored photo (without comparing it with the real photo): "OMG, the whole city is up in smoke"
My second reaction upon seeing the doctored photo: "Oh wait, it's only coming from that one building and kind of drifting around."
My third reaction upon seeing the doctored photo: "Funny pattern that smoke is travelling in..."

I wouldn't have identified it as a photoshop job myself, I would have just assumed it's some property of bombed-building smoke that I don't know about, but I'm far from an expert. The only people in the world who would be less skilled at identifying a photoshop job than I am would be people who have never used photoshop. (I've only dabbled unsuccessfully, and casually lurked around Fark and Worth1000.)

But the big issue is that the photoshopping doesn't add anything to the picture. It doesn't make it worse, it doesn't change the impact or lack thereof, it's not going to change anyone's opinion or emotional response. It's just more smoke added to a picture that already shows a lot of smoke. So why do it in the first place?