To be clear, I cannot endorse outright fabrication of facts to the point of "lying" about validity. Anyone who lies can, and should, be held accountable.
When I look at "entertainment" images or video I ask two questions:
1) Does this look real?
2) Is this pleasing or do I like it regardless of the #1 answer?
If the answer to #1 is, "No, this does not look real." and if the answer to #2 is, "No, I don't like this.", then my position regarding the artist/author is likely to just move along and never seek out anything from this artist/author again.
However, if the answer to both questions involves a "Yes ...", then I tend to actively seek out more from the artist/author.
However(2), if I get a mixed message from my senses and sensibilities then the solution gets more complicated.
For "journalistic" images or video the decision becomes much more demanding, with a "No ..." to either question causing me to avoid that particular photo/video journalist and, if the hosting agency/bureau persist with employing or supporting that particular journalist then I can question that entity as well.
With the propensity of post-processing applications with super-saturated color processing etc. it's possible that some users don't even know how much manipulation is being applied.
With some FujiFilm products offering a "Velvia Vivid" simulation the colors very much approach what Justin applied to his video. Should we all boycott such products and software that allow these opportunities?
(If the companies allow these options to exist customers will use them.)
Fujifilm XT3 Color Profile comparison