Fixing red-eye is borderline and needs to be done carefully. Someone fixing red-eye and obscuring a coloboma has distorted the image, and distorted truth.

Can you really see no difference in fixing a photographic defect and adding in stuff that was not there?

Obviously it depends a bit on where the image is used, but I'd hope that any publication would list the changes made to a photograph.

The truth that if you make it "a little of this is OK", "a little of that is OK" people will abuse it. No manipulation is clear cut and KISS.

And making an image "aesthetically appealing" can have consequences of viewer manipulation. E.g making pictures of war prettier, or removing some things that don't make the frame pleasing but reveal stuff about the actual situation, etc etc.

Even this manipulation hides facts. E.g the fact that Neil couldn't operate the camera with precision -- so it can be used to show that the walk on the moon was easier or more "piece of cake" than it really was. (Remember that one major use of the moon mission was cold-war era PR for the US).

>here's distortion of the truth, and then there's removing redeye from a picture. Which of these would you say this falls under?

Even removing redeye from a picture would be frowned upon in newsrooms.

E.g What if the picture is of a drug abusing athlete, and the process shows his eyes more normal than they were?