Are Qana photos retouched?

I state from the start. What will follow here is not recognizing Mr. North for his "debunk". I have all the reasons to presently consider Mr. North a manipulator no less mischievious than the media "retouchers". However, this does not mean that there is no base to the idea that Qana's tragedy was also abused by the media itself. In fact we have a few moments that were clearly used and abused by the media. The most clear are:

The baby being shown to everyone.
A paparazzi behaviour from certain journalists, which was fixed on the cameras.
Pictures taken clearly with signs of people posing to the camera.

But, for now, I cannot see anything more serious than this. The "staging" is mostly an invention from Mr. North, that he creates by manipulating the shots at his own will. However, is there anything else?

We saw that pictures were being faked. Besides, not only pics about the war on Lebanon. We have already a fact of a "innocent" retouch on a photo concerning the pipeline problems in Alaska. Presently, most fakes and "fakes" seem to be far from Qana's shots. Is this true?

I have to recognise that it seems to exist some "touch of art" on Qana's shots. The fact comes from this picture laying on Corbis database:

http://pro.corbis.com/images/42-17139224.jpg?size=67&uid={e2a0abe1-5dde-4b1a-af7f-cbf8eec515ad}

One can see that "White Tee-shirt man" clearly has a bloodied stain on his shirt. Any other copies of this picture are not so clear as this one. For example, on Mr. North's site one may see the same photo with only a slight suggestion of the stain:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4640/388/1600/qana%20022.jpg

On the whole, this copy seems to have been slightly reworked by an instrument that "kills" a little bit the coloration and lightens the picture.

Meanwhile, on Mr. North's beloved pic:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4640/388/1600/RC%20001.jpg

One also may see a suggestion of a stain. But it is less convincing here. Meanwhile, I have to note one thing: Mr. North claims to have called an expert, who said that the shirt may have been blurred. I, myself, have noted that the right side of the shirt (not in relation to the shot but to the man) seems to carry a sign of blurring. Truly, if it happened, it mixed with JPEG and the low quality resolution so, one cannot be absolutely sure of it. Anyway, Mr. North claims that blurring was used to cover up writings, while I cannot see the slightest suggestion of it. I can note that the sign of blurring lays a little above the place where the stain could be and carries an yellowish coloration.

There could be a possibility that someone could have used imaging tools to "low" the effect of the bloodied shirt would have on a person seeing the pic. The original coloration of the shirt would "divide" the visual effect between the bodies and the "White tee-shirt" man. Lowering the stain would concentrate the visual effect on the kids bodies. The same effect may have happened on the other photo where the same shirt may "dilute" the whole effect of a body being carried out. If such things were used, then one shall consider the pictures faked. No matter the "innocence" of the intent, pics are not showing the reality of the event per se.

Frankly this thing happened then I can only say that the media got quite necrophilic. This would mean that they are leading our eyes to "eat" the bodies.