Persuadability: Is social media a threat to team loyalty?

This week's news included an improbable link between the Afghan conflict and The World Cup in South Africa. The connecting stories were about the US Military Commander Gen Stanley McCrystal's interview with Rolling Stone magazine and ex-England skipper John Terry's comments at the World Cup daily news conference.
Both were unhappy with the direction coming down from "Top Command" and both sought to tackle it through the media.

In an article in the New York Times http://tinyurl.com/2ueglkd it describes how General McChrystal and his aides spoke critically of nearly every member of the president’s national security team. In summary they wrote: Over all, the magazine article depicted General McChrystal at the head of a small circle of aides engaged in almost locker-room trash talk as they discussed foreign policy, the French, their allegiance to each other and their own concerns about course of the war.
In reply President Obama was quoted as saying "I think it’s clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed poor judgment.”
The John Terry "rebellion" similarly appeared to involve an inner group and their dis-satisfaction over team formation and player selection. Inevitably it prompted hyped reporting with quotes like The Sun's "England's World Cup camp was in meltdown!" When responding Fabio Capello said ‘My door is open always and if you want to speak with me, you can speak with me. I think he’s more disappointed some players because when you speak you have to speak privately, not with you (the media). This is the big mistake, this is a very big mistake. It is not a revolution, it is one mistake from one player.

I have to admit to a traditionalist view on this issue. Being of an era of large national salesforces with several tiers of line-management...we learned to follow the flag and deal with "dissent." Evaluation of tactics was expected...and feedback was expected back up the line. And the system worked.
But today we live in a world of open comunication...largely because of the internet....and in particular the impact of social media. The openess that inspired the web pioneers has been carried on by Facebook, Twitter etc. Today we are enabled and encouraged to speak up and influence situations upwards.
Those of us involved in Internal Communications were quick to see social media as the answer to the perenial problem of employee engagement. To me its original attraction was in its "proletarian" ownership. People wanted to opt in to what was their "news channel" It had similar anarchic attitudes as graffiti and underground radio.
But in using it "the establishment" needs to be wary of a couple of isses.

To keep its opt in appeal Social media must retain that "proletarian" attitude. And that doesn't mean seeing the HR Director in a Chey Guevarra tee shirt and saying "innit" every 2 minutes!!
Also...we must not forget the importance of line-communication. People work for people. If top down communication is going the social route then "line-management" communication must as a minimum match it for content and speed. Otherwise disaffected leaders may genuinely feel that open communication means "open season" to say what you like about the boss!

My "old ways" worked because downline communication was flawless and so it was commensurately rewarded with good feedback...and loyalty.