This seems very relevant to an awful lot of church organizations.

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.

This “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”  is exactly the kind of clueless “marketing speak” that just drives me up a wall.  “Increase engagement with POST content”?  Sounds like the “wisdom” of a marketing department that wants to APPEAR engaged.  And emphasizing that they DONT want to use twitter for engagement?  I can accept pointing to a longer post (many use their blog for this)  to engage,  but  the twitter account can be used to indicate  the content of the engagement.  When I do this,  I title my blog posts with Twitter and Facebook-update in mind;  giving an indication of what I want to take more than 140 characters to say.

The journos I appreciate the most are those who give me an indication in their tweet about a link or their blog post about an article or issue,  of what THEY think.

Also some interesting questions about all the false equivalencies that orgs try  to pass off as “objective” and “covering both sides of the issue”

It’s unfortunate that so many news organizations appear to believe that there are two (and only two) sides to every story, and are willing to report each equally without ever taking a stand on which is the actual story.

Washington Post Tells Reporters To Stop Engaging Readers On Twitter | Techdirt