National Public Radio has done a
commendable job of establishing guidelines that promote
journalistic ethics by delineating clear boundaries between
the private and the public. In doing so, they inject a
welcome dose of order into an often unwieldy world of
conflicting information   Excerpted below are NPR’s
“commonsense rules” that can also apply to everyone in the
field of journalism:

• Information from your Facebook page, your blog
  entries, and your tweets – even if you intend them
  to be personal messages to your friends or family –
  can be easily circulated beyond your intended
  audience. This content, therefore, represents you
  and NPR to the outside world as much as a radio
  story or story for NPR.org does.
• Recognize that everything you write or receive on a
  social media site is public. Anyone with access to
  the web can get access to your activity on social
  media sites. And regardless of how careful you are
  in trying to keep them separate, in your online
  activity, your professional life and your personal
  life overlap.
• You should conduct yourself in social media forums
  with an eye to how your behavior or comments might
  appear if we were called upon to defend them as a
  news organization. In other words, don’t behave any
  differently online than you would in any other
  public setting.
• You must not advocate for political or other
  polarizing issues online. This extends to joining
  online groups or using social media in any form
  (including your Facebook page or a personal blog) to
  express personal views on a political or other
  controversial issue that you could not write for the
  air or post on NPR.org.

Furthermore, in
an effort to ensure a respectful, reciprocal relationship
between staff and readers and to promote more civil online
participation, many news organizations are establishing
guidelines to rein in contentious comments. For example, the

Cleveland Plain Dealer
recently issued a new commenting policy seeking to end
bigoted comments, while at the same time urging its staff
members to meaningfully engage with readers. Likewise, the

Boston Globe
has created a “member agreement” stipulating general
rules for reader participation on its site: “You agree not
to use language that abuses or discriminates on the basis of
race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual preference, age,
region, disability, etc. Hate speech of any kind is grounds
for immediate and permanent suspension of access to all or
part of the Service.”  Hopefully, such moves among respected
news organizations such as these will be duplicated by media
organizations concerned about the low levels of public trust
and civil discourse.

This article articulates the challenge journalists in particular (but really many of us) are struggling with as, “old, comfortable lines are being blurred. The new values of openness and authenticity are often seen as colliding with the traditional values of editorial oversight and authority. Private expression runs seamlessly into public expression.”

The NPR example helps clarify the thin line between professional objectivity and personal attachment.