Now this I think is worth noting. Alan Murray, online editor of the Wall Street Journal, replied to me in a couple of Tweets: alansmurray: @jayrosen_nyu No masks, please. Goal is to preserve journalists who are paid to seek the truth . alansmurray: @jayrosen_nyu Paid, so they can make a living. Seek the truth, rather than someone's preconceived notion of truth. - Jay Rosen

Prior context: new rules for WSJ people who interact online. They explicitly ban those people from expressing their opinions on controversial subjects, from making clear their political preferences, and from engaging in strenuous argument about their work. http://is.gd/zxbo To me this is a "mask of professional distance." Not a scary mask, nor a necessarily "fake" mask, just a mask, deliberately chosen by the WSJ as the best way to preserve credibility. - Jay Rosen

To wit: "Sharing your personal opinions, as well as expressing partisan political views, whether on Dow Jones sites or on the larger Web, could open us to criticism that we have biases and could make a reporter ineligible to cover topics in the future for Dow Jones." http://is.gd/zxbo - Jay Rosen

But... if I try to ask about that choice--wear the mask of professional distance when interacting online for the Wall Street journal, please--and whether it is actually as "safe" as it seems (I'm not sure it is, but I'm also not sure any other choice would be safer) what comes back? No masks please, we're here to tell the truth. Fascinating! He appears to object to my term, "wearing the mask of professional distance." He says: nah, we don't do that. - Jay Rosen

What did @kevinmarks say? "A professional mask is worse than real engagement, but better than slumming." http://tr.im/lyAT He didn't have any problem "getting" the concept. - Jay Rosen

Meanwhile, I will have to ask Alan on Twitter.... "Getting paid to seek truth is a good thing, @alansmurray. So you don't think WSJ people are asked to mask their personal views and opinions?" http://twitter.com/jayrose... - Jay Rosen

jeffjarvis: @jayrosen_nyu @alansmurray Do I hear a link here between 'professionalism' (read: distance=$) vs. interactivity (read: amateurism=no $)? - Jay Rosen

Okay, I think we have our answer @alansmurray: "Distance," "mask" are jay's words. I'm for fairness, accuracy, seeking truth not preconceived notion of truth. @jeffjarvis @jayrosen_nyu So Alan Murray, online editor of the WSJ, would NOT say that WSJ reporters are asked to mask their political preferences and personal opinions. But he would point to obvious known conflicts of interest and say, "that's bad." Thus: alansmurray: If question is: should Supreme Court reporter attend abortion rights rallies, my answer is no. Is that a "mask"? @jeffjarvis @jayrosen_nyu - Jay Rosen

alansmurray: Jay asked if I favored "mask of professionalism." I said no masks, and told him what I favor. http://twitter.com/alansmu... That would be truth, accuracy, reporters getting paid to tell us what happened, and not having any preconceived notions about it, plus not going to abortion demonstrations when you cover the supreme court. So does Alan Murray think wearing the mask of professional distance is a safer way to protect the brand or a riskier strategy? - Jay Rosen

I think I'd have to conclude that we have no idea what Murray thinks one way or another because the question does not make sense to him, while it makes perfect sense to me. - Jay Rosen

One thing we can say, however. To Alan Murray: language like...."Sharing your personal opinions, as well as expressing partisan political views, whether on Dow Jones sites or on the larger Web, could open us to criticism that we have biases and could make a reporter ineligible to cover topics in the future for Dow Jones..." does NOT mean to him "therefore you should wear the mask of professional distance when it comes to politics and personal opinions." As he put it, "no masks." Which I think is... well, odd. - Jay Rosen

Still feels unresolved... obviously he doesn't think there's a contradiction, but it seems contradictory to us. I think it would be worth pursuing to the point of understanding what he thinks he's seeing. What's really helpful about all this is that it reveals how complex "professional objectivity" really is. And how hard it is. - Jon Lebkowsky

How do you even understand an exchange that goes like this: Q: Whaddaya think? Is an ethic of professional distance more likely to safeguard the brand when the brand moves online, or do you take a risk with that approach? A: I think we need paid professionals to get quality news. If they're not paid, it won't be high quality. WTF? - Jay Rosen