SMITHSONIAN PROTEST: REPORTER OR REACTIONARY?

At times of political protest and social uprising, it seems it may be difficult to draw the line between being a reporter and a reactionary.  On Saturday, a group of people held a protest in Washington D.C., and attempted to march into the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum.  The event made news on its own, but received further attention when a reporter from the American Spectator published an article admitting that he had attended the protest as an "agent provocateur". 

Patrick Howley wrote that he had participated in the march not as a supporter, but rather in order to discredit, mock, and undermine it.  He claims that he the protesters lacked nerve and courage in the face of authority.  He also said that he rushed past museum guards in an effort to further escalate the protest.

Howley has been widely criticized for attempting to incite a riot, engaging in criminal activity, and breaching journalistic integrity.  It appears as though he abandoned his duties as a reporter, and chose to behave in a manner that would provoke illegal activity.  

In a Guardian article, Charlie Grapski, a fellow journalist, disagreed with the way Howley participated in the protest.  He said this:

"It is not journalism. This goes against every tenet of ethical journalism. Howley was doing it in order to 'mock and undermine'. His actions shows that the protesters were not out to disrupt, but that chaos and disruption followed his actions. Not only has he distorted the story to discredit others, he has engaged in criminal acts."

Do you believe that Howley's actions were unethical?  Is the idea of acting as an "agent provocateur" fundamentally at odds with the principles of ethical journalism?  Does the act of provoking the public (as a journalist) alter the reality of which you are supposed to report?