As if we in the news biz don't have enough threats to our livelihood, with declining readership and widespread distrust and computers that make us wish we had become professional shepherds, now there's another.

The Department of Health and Human Services has been shooting infomercials about the complicated and controversial new Medicare legislation and sending them out to TV stations, some of which put them in their local news broadcasts.

Which might make them look like news rather than PR. Which might create the impression the voiceover "reporting from Washington" is an actual reporter rather than a paid flack reading a script. Which makes me think TV news directors who use these videos unedited must have slept through Journalism 101. (I did my sleeping during Astronomy 110. It was dark.)

True, there is a fine line between journalism and PR. A lot of reporters quit to become flacks, because they get tired of a career offering neither respect nor money. Which of these statements would you rather make at your high school reunion?

1. I work for the IRS.

2. I am a telemarketer.

3. I play piano in a brothel.

4. I am a reporter.

Or,

5. I am a public relations professional!

And as the lines between journalism, marketing and entertainment get blurrier and blurrier, I wonder if I need to clean my glasses.

I also wonder if this is the future of news in this country. News organizations are almost all struggling to some degree, cutting budgets, cutting staff, closing bureaus, all because people are way more interested in Michael Jackson, "American Idol" and putting together a really sweet home theater system than they are in understanding things such as what exactly is in the Medicare Modernization Act. (A tiny toy surprise. Who knew?)

Understanding complicated things takes skepticism and research, which might require consulting more than one source of information. It's too hard, especially when you just know what's true and what isn't, and you can confirm it on the Web, source of all knowledge (and porn).

For example: The city council in Aliso Viejo, Calif., was preparing to vote recently on a proposed ban on foam cups at city events because of a dangerous chemical used in their production. The odorless, tasteless chemical, which can be lethal if inhaled, is called dihydrogen monoxide. There are several Web sites that warn of the threat it poses.

Of course, the city council members probably inhaled a certain amount of dihydrogen monoxide vapor this morning, as did you if you took a hot shower. Dihydrogen monoxide is H2O. Water.

The city manager, mopping the egg off his face with a little dihydrogen monoxide, had the gall to blame "a paralegal who did bad research." Uh huh. How about a city council that did NO research beyond a hoax Web site or two? (Sorry to rub sodium chloride in the wound.)

And these doofuses will probably get re-elected, because nobody expects research; they just expect to be protected and reassured. So why waste money on reporters? We don't like to think our government lies or blunders anyway. It's too disturbing. So instead of a nightly TV news program, I'm thinking we'll eventually have a nightly infomercial, brought to you by your friendly pals in Washington.

"Tonight on 'Amazing Government Breakthroughs,' I'm going to show you this amazing new spending package that zaps unemployment by raising the deficit!"

"I don't know, Steve. Audience, do you think this will work?"

(Audience cheers.)

"Look how the spending penetrates the stock market, trickles down and sends these folks back to work! Isn't that amazing!"

The snag is that it's against federal law to use taxpayer money for "publicity or propaganda" unauthorized by Congress. It's hard to believe that a little hype from Uncle Sam is illegal.

And here I thought it was just sleazy.