In his latest The Media Equation column, The New York Times' David Carr notes the problem of the "burped up" thought that is Twitter, particularly when it intersects with professional expectations.

Carr cites the recent suspension of CNN's Roland Martin following a Tweet during last week's Super Bowl. Carr writes a thoughtful and self-deprecating look at the challenge of using social media when his employer has high standards. The instant judgment isn't always congruent with the overall judgment.

He concludes that 140 characters makes it difficult to be journalistic, even if it is fun and even if is a requirement.

Associated Press has amended its social media guidelines to be clearer about the responsibilities inherent in redistributing another account's Tweets.

The news agency says its staff should not ReTweet in a way that makes it appear they are expressing an opinion or support. And a disclaimer that the ReTweets are not their own views does not suffice, AP says.

It is telling staff to avoid the unadorned ReTweet. It argues that implies support. This is in line with many other organizations that view ReTweets as little different than expressions of opinion.

The ground is still fresh on defining and enforcing the legal consequences of posting or hosting contentious material on social media. Litigious parties haven't pursued many cases into the courts yet.

Poynter's Mallary Jean Tenore contributes an overview for U.S. journalists that bears reading by others, too. In it she cites the boundaries emerging in the courts on how libel can and can't be pursued.

While it is true that a libel is a libel wherever it is published, there are some protections worth noting: Third-party content can be hosted or reTweeted seemingly without consequence (although any libellous material you insert will have an impact on you).

Another variation: A news organization employee's Tweets might not be problematic for the organization if they are not work-related (the employee, of course, would have a problem).

A new study of how U.S. business journalists use the Internet has some interesting implications for those who evaluate its impact on standards. It's clear that the journalistic use is primarily information-gathering.

The study for the Arketi Group asked business journalists (it isn't clear in the study how many) how they use the Internet. Not surprisingly, 98 per cent said they use it to read news, while 91 per cent use it for sources and ideas. Industry experts, interested parties and corporate websites are the most frequently used sources.

Slightly more than two-thirds (69%) use the Internet for social networking. Journalists are more likely to have Linkedin accounts (92%) than Facebook (85%) or Twitter (84%) accounts.

As for their own creating, a little more than half (53%) blog. Other top uses include consuming webinars, YouTube and Wikis, producing and listening to podcasts and social bookmarking.

Earlier today, a Twitter hoax spread that CNN host Piers Morgan had been suspended pending an investigation of his involvement in the phone-hacking scandal. Some journalists reTweeted before one journalist determined the information was untrue. (Martin Bryant of TheNextWeb chronicles the episode.)

Reuters blogger Felix Salmon says this should not be a cause for deep concern. Twitter is the "new newsroom," he writes, where people can raise rumours and have them shot down, "no harm no foul." Just as journalists pass around gossip in a newsroom, he says Twitter can serve as a similar environment.

Salmon believes that the big accounts of organizations ought to be held to higher standards. "But for the rest of us, we’re conversing on Twitter just like we converse in real life," he says.

"People are human, they believe rumours, make mistakes, jump to conclusions. Twitter is just a healthy reminder of that fact," he concludes.

What do you think?

The head of the Center for Journalism Ethics at University of Wisconsin in Madison (disclosure: a former colleague at UBC and The Canadian Press) has distilled his academic work on changing ethics into a post for the PBS MediaShift site.

In it, Stephen Ward argues that many concepts associated with journalism ethics --- particularly the "false model" of objectivity --- need redefining in the digital age. He suggests that the "just the facts" notion of objectivity is outdated. Rather, objectivity needs to be a method by which information is gathered and an ideal that helps guide the journalist.

Ward says educators need to find ways to identify ethical guidelines and best practices in all forms of journalism, including perspectival journalism and live-blogging, to ensure that truth-telling and accuracy remain in the picture. The fear that teaching perspectival journalism means lowering standards is wrong, he suggest.

"The issue is not whether certain media formats are inherently unethical. The issue is what norms are appropriate for any specific format," he writes. "We need both comprehensive principles and specific guidelines that allow students to engage new media in a creative but responsible manner."

The British Broadcasting Corp. has issued new guidelines for its journalists when using social media.

They are divided in three: personal use, program use and professional use. There is little that differentiates them from the guidelines for other organizations.

It advises people not to include BBC in any personal title, although they can acknowledge that is where they work. It suggests avoiding anything that identifies political preferences, even in their personal use.  Largely the document is about exercising common sense, recognizing that everything is public, and discouraging anything that might bring BBC into disrepute.

A separate Twitter guideline was published. An element of the guideline is the requirement for a second set of eyes on Tweets.

The Associated Press, the world's largest news organization, has revamped its social media guidelines.

Among other things, AP indicates:

1. It is uncomfortable with employees posting opinions on contentious issues, although it is acceptable to discuss such issues as sports or entertainment in certain circumstances and in good taste. If an employee's unit deals with the topic, opinions shouldn't be shared.

2. It is important not to assume that privacy settings guard any posted content; in other words, assume anything created will be susceptible to public consumption.

3. News should not be broken by personal social media.

4. It is acceptable to Friend sources, but employees should be cautious about Friending those whose presence might pose a reputational issue. The same goes for Liking on Facebook.

5. Bosses should not approach employees to Friend, but can accept Friend requests from employees.

6. Reporters should always take steps to verify information lifted from social media and should not simply reproduce it without such effort.

7. Reporters should have one Facebook account for both personal and professional use (several organizations suggest separate accounts).

News organizations continue to roll out policies that guide their journalists on how to use social media professionally and personally. The effort is a delicate one and it isn't clear how to accomplish the task.

In some instances media see no difference between professional and personal activity --- they believe that what you do anywhere reflects on your employer anywhere. In other instances there are measures in place if employees cross the line, including disciplinary action that includes termination.

The latest to weigh in is the large U.S.-based Scripps organization. Its policy sets down boundaries for professional and personal social media accounts and guides both with a set of principles.

Unlike some other companies, Scripps recognizes personal accounts have validity --- but only to deal with personal lives, not to commingle them with professional duties. Same goes for the professional accounts --- they're only there to reflect one's work. The company is clear that it will take action

As for the guiding principles on the professional accounts, they're fairly basic and common-sense: guard your reputation, engage, pause before publishing, make it a conversation, and so on.

The American Society of News Editors (ASNE) has issued a report on best practices involving social media in newsrooms.

It canvassed a variety of organizations (all but two of them U.S.-based) and developed a roster of items largely reflective of them. Most of these elements are in effect in most newsrooms today.

One interesting finding, and not necessarily a reflection of many newsrooms, is the recommendation that news be broken on a website, not on Twitter

The executive summary of the report identifies 10 key takeaways:

1. Traditional ethics rules still apply online.
2. Assume everything you write online will become public.
3. Use social media to engage with readers, but professionally.
4. Break news on your website, not on Twitter.
5. Beware of perceptions.
6. Independently authenticate anything found on a social networking site.
7. Always identify yourself as a journalist.
8. Social networks are tools not toys.
9. Be transparent and admit when you’re wrong online.
10. Keep internal deliberations confidential.

What do you think of its summary?