By NYU Staff

For Raju Narisetti, it probably seemed harmless enough, offering his thoughts about the national healthcare debate. Except Narisetti wasn’t chatting it up with his friends at a bar. Instead, the managing editor of the Washington Post was “tweeting” his opinions. And the Post execs were none too happy he was. Narisetti was reprimanded for the tweets and quickly closed his Twitter account. The problem? Narisetti’s remarks called into question the impartiality of his news judgment.

Or so says the Post. Narisetti called his comments “personal” but admitted since he’s a top guy at the paper, tweeting his opinions was “a clear perception problem,” the Post’s Andrew Alexander reported.

As if the news media wasn’t having a hard enough time itself figuring out how to make technology work for it. Now comes a growing concern for many media giants: social media. At issue is just how much reporters can – and should – say on outfits like Facebook and Twitter and whether news organizations should set up policies, even if they’re written by old line executives who still cringe at the term “friending.”

Are social media guidelines necessary to maintain the impartiality of news judgment, or do they represent a desperate attempt by media bigwigs to maintain control of an ever-increasing control-less medium? “It’s imperative that there be ongoing conversations…between reporters and their readers and sources. I worry that strict guidelines would be so inhibitive that they would work against those efforts,” says Tom Lowry, media columnist for the recently-sold BusinessWeek.

Still, the Post, whose official did not return requests for comment, didn’t seem to completely agree. An internal memo, parts of which were posted by Post writer Andrew Alexander, reveal the media company wasn’t too keen to let these conversations continue as long as they happened on Twitter. Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli, wrote: “When using these networks… [w]e never abandon the guidelines that govern the separation of news from opinion…and other hallmarks of our brand of journalism.”  Even more major media companies are crafting social media guidelines.

While most agree that online networks can be useful for reporting, they still impose restrictions on what reporters can say. At the New York Times, for example, reporters are warned to “be careful not to write in a blog or a personal Web page that you could not write in the Times.” Similarly, the BBC’s policy reads, “All BBC staff…[w]here they associate themselves with the Corporation (through providing work details or joining a BBC network) they should act in a manner which does not bring the BBC into disrepute.”

But some media critics think guidelines such as these may not work. Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University and founder of PressThink, says the important thing is who’s writing the rules. If it’s someone who uses sites like Facebook and Twitter, then it’s fine. But if they’re written by someone who doesn’t utilize those tools, Rosen says there’s trouble. He suggests reporters research best practices for using social media before diving in. “It’s surprising how often news executives fail to take that simple step,” says Rosen. In place of formal guidelines, Rosen offers his own simple rule: don’t be a jerk. “Use common sense,” he says.