Paul Sullivan has done it again.

Two months after calling Milton Bradley an "idiot" in his Twitter feed - a clear violation of any standard of journalistic objectivity - he has now reTweeted the following:

RT @OneyRoberto: Run the bases Soriano that's why people hate ur punk ass

In short, he strongly appears to be sharing his belief that Alfonso Soriano has a "punk ass" - another clear violation of any standard of journalistic objectivity.

After the Bradley incident, we asked the Tribune's sports editor if such Tweets and public pronouncements are kosher. He responded that Bradley is demonstrably an idiot, but declined to answer the question and strongly suggested I may be an idiot as wellt.

Fair enough.

So we instead seek answers in the Trib's social media policy. Except we can't find it online. So we'll move on to the New York Times' social media policy, which is instructive on this issue.

(click "read more" for full article)

Be careful not to write anything on a blog or a personal Web page that you could not write in The Times --­ don't editorialize, for instance, if you work for the News Department. Anything you post online can and might be publicly disseminated, and can be twisted to be used against you by those who wish you or The Times ill -- whether it's text, photographs, or video. That includes things you recommend on TimesPeople or articles you post to Facebook and Digg, content you share with friends on MySpace, and articles you recommend through TimesPeople. It can also include things posted by outside parties to your Facebook page, so keep an eye on what appears there. Just remember that we are always under scrutiny by magnifying glass and that the possibilities of digital distortion are virtually unlimited, so always ask yourself, could this be deliberately misconstrued or misunderstood by somebody who wants to make me look bad?

Given that, Sullivan has seemingly run afoul of several elements of the Times policy, which is in line with those at other newspapers. That includes:

1. "... don't editorialize, for instance, if you work for the News Department."

Calling a player an "idiot" or a "punk ass" would seem to be editorializing, but does the sports desk fall outside the news department? Yes, but standards for beat reporters would be identical to those of courts or legislative reporters.

2. "Anything you post online can and might be publicly disseminated, and can be twisted to be used against you by those who wish you or The Times ill -- whether it's text, photographs, or video."

Such as what we're doing here, though there's no twisting going on. Just linking to what he said.

3. "That includes things you recommend on TimesPeople or articles you post to Facebook and Digg, content you share with friends on MySpace, and articles you recommend through TimesPeople."

Or things you reTweet on Twitter? That certainly would seem to apply, as it is the 140-character equivalent of passing stories along on Facebook and Digg.

4. "Just remember that we are always under scrutiny by magnifying glass and that the possibilities of digital distortion are virtually unlimited ..."

Or digital repitition of precisely what you said.

5. "... so always ask yourself, could this be deliberately misconstrued or misunderstood by somebody who wants to make me look bad?"

Note the defensive tone that journalists take in their interactions with the public. In this instance, are we misconstruing anything? Paul Sullivan called Milton Bradley an idiot and reTweeted that Alfonso Soriano has a "punk ass."

Does that make Sullivan look bad? Not necessarily, unless you believe journalists should adhere a modicum of objectivity regarding the people and events they cover.

Both ofSullivan's Tweets are clearly a violation of the New York Times' social media policy. And the Washington Post's social media policy. And the Gazette in Cedar Rapids' social media policy.

We can't help but wonder: Does the Chicago Tribune have a social media policy? If so, is it enforced?

(h/t MO)