Does anyone ever get the impression that the big problem with journalism ethics doesn't lie quite so much with the full-time reporters as it does the think tank-based "columnists"?

"The admission by two columnists that they accepted payments from indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff may be the tip of a large and rather dirty iceberg," Howard Kurtz says today.

Take for example Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation (founded by Dick Armey), who recently acknowledged "occasional financial support" from half-a-dozen lobbyists, including Abramoff.

He has this genius of an quote for Kurtz: "There is nothing unethical about taking money from someone and writing an article."

Well, no, technically not. For instance, reporters at the Washington Post do generally take money from the Post in exchange for writing their articles. Ditto for say reporters at New York Times or even the Washington Times. In fact, there are even rumors that reporters at CNN and MSNBC often accept bimonthly direct deposits for gathering and reporting news on television.

The problem, Mr. Ferrara, is when people accept money IN EXCHANGE for reporting or expressing a point of view. Even that can be acceptable if you TELL people that you're being paid--that's why on those vitamin commericals pitchmen are labeled as paid spokespeople. You did the former and not the latter. That's where you went astray.

As the Washington Times' editorial page editor Tony Blankley said upon dropping Ferrara as a voice: "Anybody who misrepresents or doesn't voluntarily reveal that they are being paid to write the article by an interest obviously has fallen below the standard that we would hold any published author to."

Say what you will about the Washington Times: At least it understands basic journalism ethics, which is more than we can say about a long list of "columnists" these days....

(See what Michael Kinsley has to say about "pundit payola" here...)