Following a recent disclosure, the Federal Bureau of Investigation admitted to creating a bogus Associated Press news article designed to trick a 15-year-old bomb threat suspect in Washington state into downloading tracking software onto his computer. The agent posted the link on the suspect’s MySpace page in 2007; when he opened the fake link, the malware was installed. F.B.I. director James Comey wrote in a letter to The New York Times that the agent “portrayed himself as an employee of The Associated Press,” asking the suspect to fact-check a draft of the article in order to cause him to open the link.

The F.B.I. has defended its actions by stating that its tactics conformed to internal and Justice Department guidelines. Kathleen Carroll, executive editor of the AP, took the opposite stance, decrying the actions as “unacceptable.” Carroll is right: these developments suggest a dangerous infringement on freedom of press, and must not be repeated.

The F.B.I.’s actions are concerning for their blatant disregard for the fundamental role that the press should play in a democracy. These antics undermine journalistic integrity: in a country where federal agents are free to impersonate journalists, sources have no reason to trust that any journalist they meet is not actually a federal agent. Such a strain on the relationship between reporters and sources would make good reporting nearly impossible, weakening journalism’s ability to create a properly informed populace and keep institutions—such as the F.B.I.—in check.                      

The F.B.I.’s recent actions are part of a larger trend that has seen the reporter-source relationship placed in increasing jeopardy. This trend is exemplified by cases like that of James Risen, a New York Times reporter facing jail time for refusing to name a confidential source, reveal. This trend is highly disturbing and should not continue.

Sting operations may demand the use of deceptive tactics, but the impersonation of journalists is especially egregious.  The freedom of the press relies on a sharp line between journalism and government, and cannot exist when that line is blurred. Even if the end of the F.B.I.’s actions here was a good one, the means could easily be used toward less beneficent goals. The prospect of a society in which the government may freely impersonate journalists—and thus control the flow of information to citizens—is a dangerous one.

Journalistic institutions in this country should be treated with greater respect, not as pawns in a game of cat and mouse between law enforcement agencies and suspects. As the AP has requested, the F.B.I. should release new guidelines guaranteeing that actions like these will not continue. It is imperative that we advocate for the protection of the freedom of the press in any case such as this one—independent and credible journalism is vital to our welfare, and deserves such protections.