• by Kendall Allen , September 28, 2009

On Friday, you may have heard that Washington Post Senior Editor Milton Coleman released a social media policy to the staff at-large. Effective immediately, staff use of "individual accounts on online social networks, when used for reporting and for personal use" would be subject to an explicit code of conduct.

This broad yet very specific edict is a mind-bender of a read, at a time when we've never been more cognizant of our own personal and professional channels - how they run parallel or co-mingle - and the voice we convey or register, forum by forum.

As someone who often ponders the relationship between sanctioned news organizations and the burgeoning blogosphere; the maturation of channels and the increasing consequence of conversational and social media, I had not specifically tried this scenario on for size. To have to conceive and execute something of this scope or to come to work one day and receive it is, well, a bit unimaginable today. But, it's a bold stab at addressing the current media reality.

Reading this as posted on Paidcontent.org's blog, I heard whispers of the basic tenets of straight journalism in previously uncomplicated times: "Our online data trails reflect on our professional reputations and those of The Washington Post. Be sure that your pattern of use does not suggest, for example, that you are interested only in people with one particular view of a topic or issue."

Wow, would this be so simple in this day and age, when our personal and professional media stomping grounds are so vast and complex. Practically speaking, reaching up and down the ranks, as management, it's a lot to contain.

I recall growing up in the home of a newsman, and his stalwart take on "objectivity" -- maintaining it, upholding that all should be reported in the paper from an objective stance. Even as a kid, I wondered how that doctrine could be kept, day in and day out, when living, breathing human journalists navigated and channeled their personal worlds, pasts, biases and encounters into the lifeblood of the editorial output. How could it be so pure?

Well, of course it couldn't. It was the express ideal that mattered as a guiding principle on the beat and in the newsroom. Journalists drove by this light, as best they could. But, the distractions were pretty straightforward and of the world, versus at their fingertips.

Recently, with friends who happen to serve as editors-in-chief at various serious news organizations and also spend a fair amount of time blogging, interacting and lighting up other, newer channels, I have wondered what it's like for them. How they judge, direct their voice and generally conduct themselves, with so many tools and outlets at their disposal. It's a slippery slope.

Most of us have fewer fine lines to navigate. We are guided by our own affiliations, integrity and levels of self-possession and decorum as we engage and converse cross-channel, for business, pleasure or both. We deal with our own conflicts of interest, or dearly suffer the consequences.

But, aside from those at the helm, thinking of less senior staff who may not have ever had to ponder so hard the significance of their every move in every channel, this Washington Post release is a tall, tall order. Again, to quote:

"Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything - including photographs or video - that could be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility. This same caution should be used when joining, following or friending any person or organization online.

"Post journalists should not be involved in any social networks related to advocacy or a special interest regarding topics they cover, unless specifically permitted by a supervising editor for reporting and so long as other standards of transparency are maintained while doing any such reporting."

The spirit of this dictate makes sense; it is not a new concept. But, given our heightened state of convergence, the evolution of our collective use of the channels available, the specificity and scope of it, right here and right now, are worth a look.

Can something so encompassing, attempting to harness such an array of factors at a time when the media sphere has never been so enabled be enforced and honored? In good faith, sure. In practice, this is anything but a straight path.