Is there a difference between journalism and propaganda? There should be and people involved in journalism are expected to understand this. Sadly, the Bush administration seems to have gone to great lengths to blur the distinction between the two. In the long run, this is a serious disservice to the American people and journalists.

The Economist discusses the recent revelations of "journalists" on the government payroll:

[P]olitical journalists are in a position similar to financial reporters, who are usually banned from having any interests in companies they cover. ... [T]he government faces different challenges from those facing private companies. Its actions in these cases were in some ways worse because it was acting on behalf of the nation. Public money was involved—and so are various laws restricting the use of public money to influence Congress or government policy. One says that taxpayers' dollars may not be used to pay a “publicity expert” unless specifically authorised for that purpose. Another forbids financing “covert propaganda”. ... [T]he administration has muddied the relationship between government and press.

Asked whether he had broken any journalistic code of ethics, Mr Williams replied “I'm not a journalist; I'm a pundit.” With more people seeking news from obviously partisan sources, and the notion of impartiality under attack, both government and individuals have a larger incentive to take advantage of residual good faith in journalistic impartiality.

It's important, I think, to emphasize the idea that journalists shouldn't have a direct financial stake in what they are reporting on. The fact that we aren't dealing with real journalists, though, is probably the bigger and more disturbing story. People are getting their "news" from people who openly admit that they aren't journalists. They aren't even entertainers pretending to be journalists. So what are they? Political hacks on the take.

Read More:

• Guide to Ethics and Morality
• News About Ethics