Fakes and realism in Adobe editing

In this edition, there is a section where the mum took an image of her daughter looking for acorns and where DCM tries to show how editing that picture helps to improve it.

I read a statement there that i totally disagree with, what happens is that the contributing author in DCM used the clone tool and "removed" a distracting branch. He goes on to say that "while this might sound like cheating, its no difference and easy to remove  the branch when the photo was taken" (paraphrased since i can't recall the exact words but this is the exact meaning).

The picture after editing shows the branch "vanish" as though as it was broken at that part. Using this logic, one can also adobe in say Brad Pitt and say the same thing like "well we could have invited Brad Pitt and the image would have him there anyway".

I find such statements contrary to what real photography should be about, taking a shot of what is real and presenting it to others with the intention of imparting emotion. But once you "fake it" the image no longer carry credibility nor deserved to be evaluated like one.