So just who does 'get it'?

Social media commentators are a pretty elite bunch. Or so they like to think, anyway.

These (often self-appointed) gurus are keepers of the flame, high priests at the temple of The True Faith of Social Media and guardians of the Ultimate Damnation - 'they just don't get it'.

The latest victim of this cult is the unfortunate Washington Post. Managing Editor Raju Narisetti circulated a memo to staff after a journalist used a WaPo Twitter account to defend a particularly controversial column that had attracted considerable criticism.

The memo argued that the tweet should not have been posted and went on to inform staff that: "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."

Once this memo was leaked, it unleashed the predictable sermons from the priesthood and a full chorus of 'not getting it' rang out.

Now, the criticism of Mr Narisetti is not entirely misplaced and the social media commentariat are not entirely wrong. But, firstly, it's a lot more complicated than that and, secondly, it's a one-eyed and one-dimensional attack; missing the real target by miles.

So, on the first point, it's absolutely right that big media has to engage more with its audience and social media is the place to do that. But media organisations have to engage coherently - even at times corporately, in an appropriate place and in an appropriate way.

Did that WaPo journalist have the authority to speak on behalf of the paper in defending its editorial decisions, or was he speaking on his own cognisance? Was that particular Twitter account an appropriate one to begin such a conversation, or were there other more appropriate places to have that discussion? Legitimate questions.

And, while we're about it, let's nail another line of attack. It is not inconsistent for a news organisation to encourage its journalists to engage with their readers while at the same time insisting they refrain from commenting independently on editorial policy or matters that directly affect that organisation.

The BBC has had its own problems this week, with journalists tweeting things that subsequently got them into trouble. Social media, and Twitter in particular, is a very seductive and informal experience that tempts you to places you sometimes shouldn't go. The basic rule of thumb for journalists employed by mainstream media has to be 'Don't tweet anything you couldn't justify if it appeared in any newspaper' and/or 'Don't tweet anything you wouldn't be prepared to broadcast or publish on your own output'.

But to concentrate fire on this one aspect of social media activity is to miss its real beauty: that it allows a complex and multi-layered approach.

The first rule of social media is that it is about conversation. It is - except, on occasion, when it isn't. Many mainstream media organisations, including the BBC, have highly popular Twitter accounts - with tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of followers - that are effectively RSS feeds of their key stories. There's no conversation there, but they are successful because people see them as part of the mixed ecology of their Twitter timeline; providing the grit around which their own conversations and comment forms.

The same is true on Facebook. Users told us in a focus group earlier this year how they liked to take our stories and post them on their wall to provoke comment and conversation, not with us, or even other people who have friended the BBC News page, but with their own community.

A successful 'social media strategy' is however more than just using Twitter to share (aka market) content with new audiences. It's also about more than using Twitter to engage with our audiences or allow our audiences to engage with each other around our content.

It's about social newsgathering - finding the best user generated content, citizen journalism, blogs - and, in partnership with the creators of that content, using that content to enrich our own journalism for the benefit of our wider audience.

But most important, far more so than the odd misfired, misplaced tweet or a few extra clicks on stories, is the opportunity the social web offers mainstream media to change the way we do our business and reconnect more broadly with everyone and the issues and stories that matter to them.

In the olden days, before social media, before even the web, journalists were told to get out of the office, get down to the pub and build a contacts book (or community) that told them what people were saying and what they were interested in. That then informed their own journalism.

In the last decade or more, the pressure of diminishing resources and increasing output has taken away the opportunity for journalists to do their job properly: to get out of the office and talk to real people about real things.

But the social web has given us a second chance to reconnect with people - albeit in a virtual way - and we should grab hold of that opportunity with both hands. Collaborative journalism, networked journalism, distributed journalism, mutualised journalism - call it what you will, this is the real prize that social media offers media organisations.

We should grab it with both hands, because it we don't the audience will grab it for themselves.