Interpretation or statement

"What is written about a person or an event is frankly an interpretation, as are handmade visual statements, like paintings and drawings. Photographed images do not seem to be statements about the world so much as pieces of it, miniatures of reality that anyone can make or acquire."(On Photography) I did not agree with this quote for certain reasons. One is that I see photography just as distorting as a person recalling an event. I agree with her that photography is powerful and photography is truth but, who’s truth is it? And since it is not everyone’s truth should it then be considered an interpretation? I believe pictures are held with an abundant amount of weight that Susan Sontag glides over, but definitely should acknowledge more. History can be distorted based off of an image, sometimes it can add a piece to the puzzle but at times it can also be the only piece that recreates a worlds history, an untrue history for some. In my opinion, every image taken is biased, every photographer has a motive, whether it's wanting to show everyone how much fun an event was or to show the opposing side of the war, there are always parts missing. So yes, photography is a piece of the puzzle but, it is not always a valid piece and sometimes should be looked at as an interpretation just as Susan says about writing. So with that being said what makes a photograph a statement but, a written account an interpretation?