By Steve Fink, Managing Editor, WCBSTV.com

The incident is a couple weeks old now, but the issue has strong legs that will probably carry us on a long, controversial journey as social media continues to try and establish its identity within the dying industry of old-fashioned, one-way street journalism.

Kurt Greenbaum, (pictured right) who directs social media – or at least his own definition of that vague term – for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, made national headlines after calling out a repeat dirty commenter – literally –  by tracking him down through his IP address and costing him his teaching job a week before Thanksgiving.

It’s a nasty situation for all those involved, but for journalists, it punctuates the fact that social media lacks a clear – and clean – role within the boundaries of our rapidly-changing industry. I don’t know Kurt, so I couldn’t tell you if he really cares whether or not he just added some belly fat to our still out-of-shape economy, but I’m sure the outcome didn’t ring in much holiday cheer for him or his colleagues.

But with the wide-ranging opinions as to whether or not Kurt went too far by tracking down the prankster, it shows we’re still not sure how we want social media to impact our journalistic mediums.

We’ve suddenly gone from journalists to social journalists, engaging our audiences rather than simply entertaining them.

It’s that word “social” that just shakes everything up.

The incident hits home for me because only recently did WCBSTV.com finally hop on board with open commenting in our stories. Perhaps we’re a little late, but the Greenbaum effect got me thinking we’re actually somewhat early, that maybe we are safer, and even better off, as journalists, not “social” journalists.

It used to be we were all simple paperboys, tossing our coverage of current events at our audiences and riding off into the sunset. Now we’re asking for something in return. We’ve suddenly empowered our audience, and turned our paperboy gigs into a tandem route – this social joyride.

Only, who exactly steers the handlebars now?

Three years ago, Wikipedia defined what we call “social media” as “the term used to describe media which are formed mainly by the public as a group, in a social way, rather than media produced by journalists, editors and media conglomerates.”

Back then, we decided to empower our audience by tossing this social mixer. Sure, why not? Invite everyone over and turn this reporting gig into a town hall bash.

Then, somewhere along the way, the power began to shift and we had to adapt our roles to this now modern-social journalism, while trying to not lose sight of how politically correct we still are as old-fashioned journalists.

That dirty, ever-changing, ever-expanding, seemingly limitless and horrifically lawless word: “social.”

Now here we are, with this long, drawn out wiki definition of “social media” that includes: “It supports the democratization of knowledge and information, transforming people from content consumers into content producers.”

Suddenly, being social means forming a democracy. Perhaps that’s why Facebook is banned in China, Iran, and Vietnam, among other countries.

Maybe it is a democracy. Maybe it’s not. But the new social journalism doesn’t seem to have a constitution that tells us, the journalists, how exactly to govern the democracy.

At WCBSTV.com, we’re still toying with what’s OK and what’s not. We’re taking the typical liberal route and following common protocol: curse words are prohibited; rudeness, attitude, antagonizing opinions – as long as they’re clean, non-threatening, hateful, or offensive to any gender, race, or ethnicity – are fine.

Would I hunt someone down who kept smearing dirt on the site? If it was breaking a real-life law, sure, that would make sense. Otherwise, until I get that constitution drafted by the social media government, I’ll keep stirring my drink, hang back against the wall, observe and adapt with the rest of you.

And if you call me a dirty word, I’ll simply delete you, and move on.