These rules are asinine. Look, reporters do need to be reminded that they should assume that anything they post on a forum, Facebook or Twitter eventually can be seen by ANYone, so they shouldn't be stupid. But to have to have a senior editor approve a tweet or not allowing reporters to blog, you're making it so they can't do their jobs effectively anymore.

On the reporters' side, they need not to be idiots. No, they shouldn't get into fights with critics online. But they shouldn't have to be told that – they're not supposed to get into fights with critics over the phone or in person, either. Besides just reflecting poorly on the paper, it also achieves NOTHING.

Rule Nos. 1-10: Don't be stupid. kthanxbai.

So how's this, Amy/John:

“Assume everything you do online is public, or could be made public at some point. Conduct yourself in a way that's consistent with your publication's code of conduct. Being a good social media citizen means interacting with others – sources and non-sources, readers and non-readers alike – with a combination of common sense and common courtesy.

If you have any questions, ask your editors.”

Could at least be an executive summary, no?

I defer to Jamie Kelly's “two-line social media policy:”

1. If you’re using an account for work purposes, identify yourself as an employee of The Gazette.

2. If posting something would embarass you or the company, or call your professional reputation into question, DON’T POST IT.

And I think it would be wise for us to follow the The Media 2.0 Best Practices being collaboratively developed by a group of people much smarter than me.