Nowhere near as low as the faked white-helmets video that lead to 105 cruise missiles being fired on Syria, nor as intriguing as the fake Skripal affair.

Similar use of deception has been used by police forces to capture criminals in the US for some time now. They say that the person has won a lottery and needs to claim it, and things like that.

I see no problem with it. The media did not fabricate news nor participate in the sting. The man threatened happened to be employed by the media, but this was not a news outlet working with the government to provide fake news. This is no different than the police going undercover or setting up deceptive operations for crime prevention. It's standard police practice.

I see no problem with it. — Hanover

I think he wife would disgree. She didn't know it was fake when it was reported.

I think he wife would disgree. She didn't know it was fake when it was reported. — Michael

Maybe she would disagree, maybe not. The ruse could have saved his life.

Regardless, I think it's beside the point. The concern of the OP was whether this "fake news" story further eroded the integrity of the press, and I don't think it does because it wasn't orchestrated by the press nor was the press knowingly involved in the scheme. It was orchestrated by law enforcement entirely, which is something law enforcement does often. Had law enforcement contacted the media and gotten the media to report a fake report for the purposes of catching a criminal, where it was shown that the government/police and the media were working in unison, then I would see that as a problem of blurring the distinction between the press and the government. The press is supposed to be a check on the power of the government and we don't want them working as a team, but I don't see any knowing involvement from the press, other than in this instance the victim happened to be someone who worked in the media..

The concern of the OP was whether this "fake news" story further eroded the integrity of the press, and I don't think it does because it wasn't orchestrated by the press nor was the press knowingly involved in the scheme. — Hanover

The ultimate problem was that the journalist, Babchenko, sacrificed truth in order to apprehend a criminal, which I think is a perversion of principled journalism, in which journalists put their lives on the line in order to report the truth. This is particularly problematic in a country like Ukraine. He also likely traumatized many people, including family and friends. That the reporter saved his own life, and the lives of others is speculation, but would-be assassins have been captured through other methods outside of staged murders. I'm sure other methods could have been used to apprehend the criminals.

The ultimate problem was that the journalist, Babchenko, sacrificed truth in order to apprehend a criminal, which I think is a perversion of principled journalism, in which journalists put their lives on the line in order to report the truth. — Maw

A few things. First, I don't believe the reporter here was acting in his capacity as a reporter when he worked with the police, so I don't see it as an issue of journalistic integrity. It was just ordinary citizen integrity of a man who happened to be a journalist. It wasn't like he was trying to lie in order to create a story.

I do not believe there is a suicide pact that all journalists must sign before becoming journalists. Your right and duty to preserve your own life goes beyond your duty to protect the general reputation of the media. I would think that if this journalist used deceit to save the lives of other citizens you would allow it. I don't see why his life is worth less than others.

You also overlook the fact that undercover journalism has been used for years and has exposed all sorts of wrongs and provided insight into people's lives we'd never have known about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_journalism

But he did lie in order to create a story. That was the whole point, create a story in which his supposed death, which was widely reported, could help apprehend the would-be assassins. I don't think you can so easily separate Babchenko as a reporter vs. Babchenko as a citizen, given that it was the former occupation which placed a target on his head.

I never said or implied that there is a "suicide pact" for journalists. Even police officers or firefighters doesn't go into their respective fields thinking that they will likely die. My point is that journalists need to be committed to telling the truth, and sometimes they put their lives on the line for it.

Undercover Journalism is not ethically black and white, as the link you provided explicitly states. There are lines where some journalists have been unwilling to cross. And, more to the point, there is a tremendous difference between deceiving an organization, or some coterie, to disclose corruption that harms the public vs. deceiving the public, which is anathema to a journalist's duty.

The question that needs to be asked is: was the staged operation the only way to apprehend the criminals? I sincerely doubt that, and I think the public deception, and even worse, deceiving his wife and children, could have been avoided.

First I must say that, for all the good will that I have towards Ukraine, I have very little trust in their SBU (secret police) and authorities in general.

That said, if we take what we are being told at face value, then, as others here have noted, this sting operation was not unusual. According to some law enforcement experts, such operations are routinely conducted in countries all over the world. The difference here was all the publicity surrounding the fake assassination, due to Babchenko being a pretty well-known public figure in those parts, and of course due to the politics of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. But (again, taking a view charitable to the SBU) the publicity was not the point. They did not need it to catch the organizer of the hit; according to the information that has been released, the SBU knew who he was for up to two months before the event. But for an investigator to "know" something is not the same as having a solid proof that a prosecutor can take to court. This is why (supposedly) they needed to drag the ruse all the way through the fake assassination. Presumably, the would-be hit man then got in touch with the organizer in order to finalize the deal and get his payment, giving his handlers the opportunity to obtain actionable evidence.

As for the notion that journalists take some equivalent of a Hippocratic oath that for the rest of their lives forbids them to participate in any deception for any reason whatsoever, that is simply ridiculous.

As for the notion that journalists take some equivalent of a Hippocratic oath that for the rest of their lives forbids them to participate in any deception for any reason whatsoever, that is simply ridiculous. — SophistiCat

As I've already stated, I made no such notion.