> However, there is no proof that the photographer was deliberately seeking to create a distorted impression of the scene.
How could there be? Do you expect the photographer to outright admit that intent? Short of such an admission, what would proof of the photographers' intent look like?
I suspect it's unfair to blame the photographers on the ground directly for this. Often photographers will take a number of shots from different angles and at different focal lengths and at different moments. At least in some publications after that they will have then had only very limited input into which images got used (or whether their images or someone else's were used).
In these cases it is/was an editorial decision. If editorial staff had multiple images to choose from like this then it's hard to see a decision to use the most crowded-looking photos (which it's pretty hard to argue isn't what happened) as a completely innocent one.
Yes, if the subject of the story is "overcrowding at popular park despite coronavirus" it is intensely dishonest to exclusively use shots taken with long lenses.
How could there be? Do you expect the photographer to outright admit that intent? Short of such an admission, what would proof of the photographers' intent look like?