Last week, Washington Post reporters were reprimanded for using the newspaper's official Twitter account to reply to critics, according to TBD.

On Oct. 15, the Post's Raju Narisetti sent a memo to the newsroom scolding journalists for the way they had used the official Twitter account:

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.

After the Post published a controversial piece online -- TBD reported that it was written by anti-gay activist Tony Perkins for the "On Faith" section -- journalists responded to GLAAD critics via Twitter in a "misguided" way, saying the piece was a way to cover both sides of the issue. The tweets "shouldn't have been sent," the memo said.

This was the Twitter exchange between the Post and GLAAD:
GLAAD's initial tweet:
The @WashingtonPost Gives Platform to Anti-Gay Activist http://bit.ly/crX6q5 #LGBT #gay

Washington Post reply:
Hi @glaad, we're working to cover both sides. Earlier, we hosted Dan Savage of It Gets Better in a live chat. http://wapo.st/aA8SXX

GLAAD's reply:
@WashingtonPost There are not "both sides" to this issue. Teen suicide isn't a debate-it's a tragedy. http://bit.ly/crX6q5 #LGBT

The Columbia Journalism Review argued that the issue wasn't that Twitter shouldn't have been used to engage with readers -- after all, that's one of the benefits of social media. Instead, "the problem was the response itself, not that it was made. It might have been better to say something like this:

@GLAAD good point. Did it for balance, but upon reflection, realize the error in judgment. Appreciate the watchful eye. And the debate."