The difference is that taxpayers pay for one form of propaganda
It's hard for me to feel sorry for the photographers complaining that when they take halo photos of Obama, it's reporting, but when Obama's photographers do it, it's propaganda.
It's propaganda either way.
The difference is that taxpayers pay for one form of propaganda and consumers pay for the other by subsidizing advertising from the companies that sell the products they buy.
So the real difference is between involuntary propaganda and voluntary propaganda. That's an interesting, but not altogether meaningful distinction.
It means that media photogs could one day decide to take pictures that make Obama look bad. But they won't. Obama's court photographer has no such freedom of will.
Likewise taxpayers are forced to subsidize Pete Souza's regime photos, but could opt out of the media photo lovefest by avoiding any major brands.
Getting to the heart of the issue, the media photogs have discovered that their propaganda can't compete with White House propaganda. You can't outpropogandaize someone who is already an employee. They could still compete by taking compelling realistic or unflattering photos of The One. It would give them leverage of the only kind that the likes of Valerie Jarrett understand. But instead they're whining that their role as unofficial propagandists has been usurped by official propagandists.