If you’re a regular news consumer I’m about to burst your bubble. Journalists are not objective robots and often have opinions on contentious subjects. For far too long the myth of objectivity has led to milquetoast journalism.

Why am I even talking about this? The Washington Post (they broke that Watergate story a while back) released a new social media policy in the past week that got a bit of blowback. Their new social media policy severely restricts what their journalists can say on social media sites like Twitter. You can read more about it here. The policy was hastily enacted after Raju Narisetti, one of its editors, had some, shall we say, inelegant tweets on certain issues. I’ll copy and paste the offending text here.

“We can incur all sorts of federal deficits for wars and what not. But we have to promise not to increase it by $1 for healthcare reform? Sad.”

“Sen Byrd (91) in hospital after he falls from ‘standing up too quickly.” How about term limits. Or retirement age. Or commonsense to prevail.”

Now, this is not to say that professional journalists shouldn’t be prudent with their Twitter accounts. If you’re a professional journalist there are certain expectations on your public life that are entirely reasonable. But a social media policy should be common sense, it shouldn’t read like this.

“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.”

and

“All Washington Post journalists relinquish some of the personal privileges of private citizens. Post journalists must recognize that any content associated with them in an online social network is, for practical purposes, the equivalent of what appears beneath their bylines in the newspaper or on our website.”

Reading these policies one sees the complete neutering of any kind of real, legitimate discussion by Washington Post journos. Howard Kurtz, a media reporter, had a memorable tweet saying that “Under new WP guidelines on tweeting, I will now hold forth only on the weather and dessert recipes.”

Mathew Ingram, the communities editor at the Globe and Mail has a great take on the subject with his article “Is transparency the new objectivity?”

I think a smart reporter or writer won’t say things that would damage his or her credibility, either on Twitter or anywhere else… At the same time, however, a smart newspaper or media outlet should realize that using social media to connect with readers — even if that means embracing more transparency than it is typically used to — is a positive thing, rather than something to be feared and protected against.

The Post’s policy got James Poniewozik going as well with his article on Time’s website called “The Washington Post Slaps the Twitter Handcuffs on Its Staff“. Here are some juicy morsels from another excellent piece.

To successfully use Twitter et al., you have to give up control, and that scares the hell out of institutions like the Post. Their old way of doing business is to make sure that (except for a few stars like Bob Woodward) their staff remain anonymous drones who subordinate themselves to the paper’s brand.

But that day is over, and the Post only hurts its brand by handcuffing its writers on Twitter. Its policy amounts to: just don’t say anything interesting, and things will be fine.

I graduated from journalism school and the students and faculty all knew objectivity was a crock. So keep in mind that the next story you’re reading was written by a real person, they may not be objective but if they’re transparent about any conflicts of interest and strongly held beliefs and they’re worth a lick they should still be able to tell a decent story. If they aren’t transparent or don’t tell a good story vote with your eyes and read another article., it’s your job as a savvy news consumer.