A photo never lies?

I find it remarkable that several reviewers here have argued that because "all" the director did was to edit raw footage, that that somehow makes this documentary more "truthful" or honest than if it were a dramatized version with actors, scripts, etc.

Anyone who's ever worked in film, video, or even still photography can tell you that editing -- that is, choosing which footage is to be used (and more importantly, which footage is NOT to be used), in what order it is to be shown, how it is to be spun or presented to the viewer, etc. -- is no minor matter. Would the people making this argument similarly claim that what the editor of a newspaper does isn't a big deal?

Yes, photos can and often do lie. In the 21st century, people ought to know better than to claim otherwise.