What if it was the contrary, that rules help us better understand the truth?
I have a eeire feeling that your whole reasoning does not work and that this whole article denotes a lack of intellectual honesty: you say that the rules of photojournalism keep us from the truth, and you use the Ukrainan conflict as an example, but then again with your own pictures you decide to tell a very small part of the story, your own personal truth about the Ukrainan conflict.
To verify this, I will use the same device you used in this post: try googling “donald weber ukraine” and see what pictures come out: the interrogation series, of course, and a dozen of… well, very cool and glamourous bottles. Is this really your contribution as a journalist… oops, sorry, a “storyteller”, to the understanding of the conflict?
Now, try doing the same with jerome sessini, an photojournalist who actually follows the rules of photojournalism, whom you probably consider as a “technically proficient” creator of “picturesque gluttony”.
What you get with one click of the mouse (“jerome sessini ukraine”) is an incredibly full picture of the conflict, from Kiev’s riots to Crimea, from the bloody “rebel vote” to the Malaysian jet crash to the more recent East Ukraine battles. He has it all, and though I have never been in Ukraine, as a journalist and picture editor I have a feeling that he really “tells the story” from all angles, in a very professional and unbiased way.
So, to put it simple, though I am a great fan of new photographic storytelling devices (for example I love Giovanni Troillo’s work on Charleroi for example, though I would never consider it for a World Press Photo prize) I think that in most cases the good ol’ photojournalistic style still works when it comes to inform people without deceiving them.