The Guardian this morning has published a new set of social media guidelines for its journalists. It does so in the same week that the Washington Post came out and told its staff not to respond to critics on Twitter. Two papers two responses.

The Guardian’s guidelines cover blogging, tweeting and the use of social media to allow it to “to maintain editorial standards and help create effective communities on the web”.

Earlier this week The Washington Post got in a very public row, which resulted in a memo to staff, after a reporter hit back at a critic on Twitter.

Gay rights group GLAAD hit out at the Post on Twitter criticising a piece by anti-gay activist Tony Perkins and his theory on why gay teens get depressed.

The Post’s official Twitter feed shot straight back saying that it was working “both sides” of the issue. GLAAD argued the Post was giving a voice to anti gay activists.

The exchange was widely reported and does not paint the Post in a great light. It highlights how quickly “conversations” in social media can spin out of control. It only takes a comment.

In the memo (in full below) to its staff the Post said: “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.”

While I can completely understand the response by the Post it seems to deny the world we live in. It is the equivalent of putting the digital shutters up. It’s too late that. Readers and critics will tweet or post responses to content. And the Post’s answer to that is to basically ignore those people. Will someone please take their head out of the sand. What Gap did when its new logo when all Fubar on it is instructive. It listened, responded and acted.

For its part the Guardian says its guidelines are designed to encourage journalists “to take responsibility for conversations they start by responding to comments, as well as focussing on constructive contributions rather than those that are considered disruptive”.

It says that editorial staff are encouraged to link to sources for facts or statements that are referenced, as well as being transparent about declaring any personal interests.

“Beyond this, staff are asked to remember the former editor CP Scott’s famous dictum that ‘comment is free, but facts are sacred’ by not blurring facts and opinions, and to exemplify the Guardian’s community standards in contributions.”

Constructive is one of the key words there. I’m often amazed how quickly people forget this, forget that social media, be it Twitter, blogs of Facebook, is a public domain. It is like being, as others have said before, in a bar, and if you shout people will look and they will start talking about you. Anyway, here’s what I try to remember (my tips not the Guardian’s - as clarified by Meg Pickard):

Six points for social media engagement

1.    Do not ignore your critics. If you have put your brand into the social media space then you must engage and take part in the conversation. Your silence will be talked about and work against you.

2.    Be friendly, respectful and open. Listen to what critics, readers customers are saying and make sure you hear. Then work out how best to respond.

3.    Remain level headed and do not get annoyed and post an immediate response. Disaster this way lurks. It might only take a second or two to type a comment but it will be permanent. You might be able to delete a hasty response – but its content will be quickly recorded be it by text or screen grabs. Have some cool off time before you respond.

4.    Remember who you represent when you respond. If you are tweeting or blogging in a work capacity you have a responsibility to your employer or brand.

5.    Make sure you have the facts and know the issues before you respond. Do not shoot from the hip and hope you can bluff it. Remember these are public conversations.

6.    Be prepared to admit when you are wrong and quick to correct mistakes. People like this and res pond well to it.

Here’s the official Washington Post memo.

From: Raju Narisetti
Sent: 10/15/2010 12:25 PM EDT
To: NEWS – All Newsroom@WashPostMain
Subject: Responding to readers via social media

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.

Raju