The Washington Post sent a memo to its staffers telling journalists not to answer critics from Post-branded Twitter accounts or to use their personal accounts to "speak on behalf of the Post."

The memo comes after the Post published a controversial guest article online, "Christian compassion requires the truth about harms of sexuality," by Tony Perkins.

The article was published after a number of suicides by teenagers, who were bullied for being gay. The article argued that homosexuality is a mental health issue, which prompted GLAAD, a gay activist group to complain about the article via Twitter and on its site. Responding to GLAAD's public tweets, a staffer from The Washington Post tried to defend the publishing of the article as giving a platform for "both sides" of the debate. The response only fueled more frustration from GLAAD, which took to Twitter to say that there aren't two sides to the issue at all:







The Memo

As a result, the following memo was sent to staff by Post Managing Editor Raju Narisetti, who is no longer on Twitter after offering his thoughts on more spending for health care:

This week, some Post staffers responded to outside critics via our main

Twitter account. At issue was a controversial piece we'd published online. The intent in replying was to defend the decision to publish the piece, but it was misguided both in describing our rationale for publishing the piece and as a matter of practice. It shouldn't have been sent.



Even as we encourage everyone in the newsroom to embrace social media and relevant tools, it is absolutely vital to remember that the purpose of these Post branded accounts is to use them as a platform to promote news, bring in user generated content and increase audience engagement with Post content. No branded Post accounts should be used to answer critics and speak on behalf of the Post, just as you should follow our normal journalistic guidelines in not using your personal social media accounts to speak on behalf of the Post. Perhaps it would be useful to think of the issue this way: when we write a story, our readers are free to respond and we provide them a venue to do so. We sometimes engage them in a private verbal conversation, but once we enter a debate personally through social media, this would be equivalent to allowing a reader to write a letter to the editor—and then publishing a rebuttal by the reporter. It's something we don't do. Please feel free to flag Marcus, Liz and me when you see something out there that you think deserves a response from the Post. As we routinely do, we will work with Kris Coratti and her team to respond when appropriate.

Encouraging Dialogue, Community

The Post is clearly trying to do some damage control, but in a time when it is often difficult to encourage traditional journalists to embrace social media and dialogue with readers, this will only discourage it further. News organizations should be encouraging dialogue and debate, not stifling dialogue between readers and journalists.

Sure, it makes sense that they should rein in who manages the Washington Post-branded Twitter account, as that could be seen as an "official" response of the company and not an individual. But putting a stop on engagement and conversation regarding Post stories from journalists will only distance those reporters from the very community they are a part of. Perhaps a clarification to "speak on behalf of the Post," could clear up what is okay for journalists to engage in dialogue. But it is also likely that some journalists will now avoid it altogether. There also seems to be a disconnect in what journalists are encouraged to increase audience engagement with Post content, and not the journalists themselves.

A Broken Model For Conversation

The memo goes on to explain why this sort of response or rebuttal for a story should not come from a reporter at the Post, with the reasoning pointing to an old model of dialogue that distances the reporter from the community. Basically, what Narisetti points to is the current process of dialogue and conversation in the controlled environment of "Letters to the Editor." If readers have something to say, they can respond through that avenue and reporters are not able to write a rebuttal back.

Of course, this varies from news organization to news organization, but this model is broken. It only reaffirms the old model of "we publish and you listen," and a model that had a disconnect from the news process and the former audience. It is not a model of conversation and dialogue around news that has become increasingly social. Why not encourage reporters to have a dialogue around the news? Around the stories they cover, producing and giving more transparency to the process?

It does appear that some dialogue will still take place from the Washington Post account, but the process seems overly bureaucratic at a time when responding quickly is important.

What do you think?

Thumbnail courtesy of iStockphoto, fotosipsak