The key issue with so-called social tools is that they fall down when there are no social feedback loops and constraints. You would think twice about what you post to your own personal network because there are consequences for being an ass…but if you can comment anonymously on a site then there are no consequences.

Equally, who you share information with (and receive it from) is important. One is unlikely to really care much about the opinions of a thousand other random people…but may well care about the opinions expressed within a defined social group (like this one).

So whether or not a media company enables social tools or not is really a question about what role they see themselves as having (public forum, content provider, opinion former, etc.). Media companies have always had formal and informal feedback from audiences..adding social media tools does not change this…it just makes it more explicit and visible.

If media is important…it will be shared…and thus have a social life…whether or not a media company provides the tools to do it. But the question is what value does it add…and for whom…and therefore how does it help you achieve your goals as a company and meet the needs of your audiences.

Don't read it as a pass because I believe news content should be active and dynamic, and should accommodate the end user to a certain extent. But it does raise some interesting questions, and wouldn't want to write off such a decision without first pondering its possible merits.

And yet it could be equally contended that – provided sensible moderation is in place – it constitutes a step in the right direction. Inaction is simply not an option any longer for traditional media too keen on mologuing: 'being social across the board', as Chris argues here, may prove the best antidote.