It's a matter of semantics, but I disagree with you. It's not "just" a matter of semantics.

If you are a photographer for Nat'l Geographic or Reuters or AP or BBC or any of those other places, there are incredibly strict rules about what you can do to your photograph for it to still be a publishable. Too much sharpening? Not allowed. Too much contrast enhancement? Not allowed. Reuters gives us the honor of knowing what the basic rules are, but it's still at the discretion of the photography editor.

These guidelines exist because "just" photographs are intended to be snapshots of reality, not manipulated into a non-existent vision of what the somebody wants you to see.

The Associated Press is a bit harder to track down, but:

AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or digitally manipulate the content of a photograph in any way.

The content of a photograph must not be altered in Photoshop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by Photoshop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust on camera sensors and scratches on scanned negatives or scanned prints are acceptable.

Minor adjustments in Photoshop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging previously used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. The removal of “red eye” from photographs is not permissible.

Except as described herein, we do not stage, pose or re-enact events. When we shoot video, environmental portraits, or photograph subjects in a studio care should be taken to avoid, misleading viewers to believe that the moment was spontaneously captured in the course of gathering the news. In the cases of portraits, fashion or home design illustrations, any intervention should be revealed in the caption and special instructions box so it can’t be mistaken as an attempt to deceive.

I would argue that treating submissions like this as "photographs" dilutes the meaning of a photograph, to the point that any mish-mash assemblage of pixels will soon be considered a "photograph."