Two examples from the United States.
The Chinese even used footage from TopGun in a propaganda piece:
What I don't get is that the Iranians and those responsible for the US photoshops think that this sort of thing will go unnoticed.
They gave the General a more aesthetically appealing background. It is unethical from a photojournalistic standpoint, where failing to check whether "Michelle" is spelled with one L or two for the cutline is also considered unethical — but I don't think most people would consider it deceitful. Family photos taken in a studio very often have false backgrounds, but very seldom do people look at their shelves and mourn that the photos of their loved ones are all lies.
Even the second story is not really the same thing. It's more obviously deceitful, but it is still attempting to convey truthful information — that is the guy who died, and he wore a uniform like that — rather than attempting to mislead the viewer. It would appear that they didn't have a photo that conveyed the information they wanted, so they pieced it together. At its heart, it is much like using a sketch when you don't have a photo. The message is all truthful, so it is still a step above the propaganda discussed in the OP.
I wonder if they will photoshop the bomb.