It's good to hear this perspective, thanks for sharing it. One difference is that there is no controversy over whether foster children exist. And, as you say,

It's good to hear this perspective, thanks for sharing it. One difference is that there is no controversy over whether foster children exist. And, as you say, they used neutral pictures of kids with neutral expressions -- what if they had instead used (staged) photos of kids in distress, to get more sympathy? (And still, nobody denies that foster kids in distress exist, but this already seems questionable, right?) The things Amnesty highlights, some people want to challenge the fact that they happened, that they even exist, or happened like Amnesty said, or were as bad as Amnesty said. Credibility as being honest and accurate in reporting on what happened is pretty crucial to Amnesty's ability to succeed at it's goals. But perhaps the Amnesty staffers were thinking about it like you, and that it was the same. I don't think it is, at all. Certainly they have no obligation to put people at risk by including pictures in which people can be identified. There are many options that are not using manufactured pictures, including pictures without visible faces or obscuring faces. Using real-looking but manufactured/staged pictures is a really bad choice. Even if it would get more attention or dollars or support than other choices, the consequences are disastrous for Amnesty's credibility at exposing things that some forces want to say didn't happen or weren't as bad as Amnesty says.