Talk about trying to live up to an image that nobody has of you anyway.

But that’s essentially what The Washington Post is attempting to do by issuing a set of social media policies to ensure the public doesn’t find out some of its editors have (insert dark, dramatic music) personal political opinions.

Here’s the background from Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander:

As tweets on Twitter, they’re pretty innocuous.

“We can incur all sorts of federal deficits for wars and what not,” read a recent one. “But we have to promise not to increase it by $1 for healthcare reform? Sad.”

Then, from this week: “Sen Byrd (91) in hospital after he falls from ‘standing up too quickly.’” How about term limits. Or retirement age. Or commonsense to prevail.”

What makes these tweets significant is that they were written by Raju Narisetti, one of The Post’s top editors. As one of two managing editors, he’s responsible for The Post’s features content and oversees its Web site. But he also sits in on news meetings and occasionally gets involved in “hard” news.

Bottom line: Narisetti has tweeted his last tweet. The Post Features editor has closed his Twitter account, having belatedly realized that his “personal” observations created a “clear perception problem.”

The elements of lameness in this case are many and varied. Let’s go item by item:

Alexander writes that The Post’s Features Editor is such an integral part of the news decision-making process that he “also sits in on news meetings and occasionally gets involved in ‘hard’ news.”

“Occasionally gets involved”? What does that even mean? He stands near the copy desk once in awhile to catch scores on CNN’s Headline News? All this is another way of saying that Narisetti has next to nothing to do with the news operation.

Alexander writes that Narisetti’s “decision to stop posting coincides with today’s release of new Post newsroom guidelines for using Facebook, Twitter and other online social networks.”

Here The Post misleads us — and they’re worried about credibility issues? Narisetti’s “decision” to stop tweeting (clearly made under pressure) “coincides with today’s release of new Post newsroom guidelines”… “Coincide,” of course, is the root word of “coincidence.” This is a subtle but unmistakable implication by Alexander, and a not-so-subtle segue from that forgettable little incident to The Post‘s glorious and forward-looking social media policy — which serves to reminds us that The Post will continue to adhere to objectivity standards (that virtually no one believes it has).

According to Alexander, “The guidelines had been in the works for some time. Post senior editor Milton Coleman had been working on them since May, building on guidelines that had been crafted for The Post’s Web site.

Translation: The Post hadn’t gotten its act together yet on a social media policy (see You Need a Social Media Policy. No, Really, You Do) and then had to scramble when the complaints about Narisetti’s tweets started pouring in from right-wingers.

Alexander writes, “Many readers already view The Post with suspicion and believe that the personal views of its reporters and editors influence the coverage. The tweets could provide ammunition.”

If you read the first sentence you realize the second sentence is almost comical. You see, there already is plenty of ammunition for both sides. More is irrelevant. Liberals have no problem coming up with examples which they say show that The Post skews its coverage to favor Establishment Washington, while conservatives easily can point to coverage that they interpret as showing liberal bias.

There’s no such thing as perfect objectivity. Let’s quit pretending it exists. While one could argue “objectivity” is something to strive for, this situation strikes me more as being about protecting some idealized “appearance of objectivity” that is a mere fantasy.

If you want to see The Post‘s social media policy, paidContent.org has obtained a full copy.