This is funny. First, Kyoto isn't about smog, haze, or pollution per se, it's about carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a colorless gas. Why photoshop an image to add a brown haze to a picture if the story is about a treaty that regulates a colorless gas? Does your definition of "colorless" include "creates a brown haze"? (UPDATE Ha ha ha, I should have known this one).

Second, the rest of the story's even better:

1. the same magazine has used the non-doctored picture in other articles


2. the smokestacks have been destroyed


3. the smokestacks weren't being used the few years before they were demolished

My understanding of "journalism" doesn't include manipulation like this.