New York Times Bans Use of Word "Tweet"

An anonymous reader writes "New York Times standards editor Phil Corbett has had enough of his journalists' sloppy writing. Their offense? Using the 'inherently silly' word 'tweet' 18 times in the last month. In an internal memo obtained by theawl.com, he orders his writers to use alternatives, such as '"use Twitter" ... or "a Twitter update."' He admits that ' ... new technology terms sprout and spread faster than ever. And we don't want to seem paleolithic. But we favor established usage and ordinary words ...' After all, he points out, ' ... another service may elbow Twitter aside next year, and "tweet" may fade into oblivion.' Of course, it is also possible that social media sites will elbow paleolithic media into oblivion, and Mr. Corbett will no longer have to worry about word use." While this sounds like it could as well be an Onion story, the memo is being widely reported.

Comments

Thank God

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone had to do it.

Re:Thank God

[Nick Fel]

Amen. I'm sick of the media fawning over Twitter. If I wanted to know what AnonymousPunter1983 thought, I'd go down the pub and ask my friends. Give me proper news and analysis, not regurgitated social network content.

Re:Thank God

[jhoegl]

Kiddie watchers and robbers care. At least THEY "thought of the children".

Gained respect for NYT

[Junta]

I cringe every time I hear the word 'tweet'.

Re:Gained respect for NYT

[vikstar]

Phil Corbett groks journalism.

Re:Gained respect for NYT

[girlintraining]

I cringe every time I hear the word 'tweet'.

I cringe everytime I hear english. It's the language of borrowed words, and I'm pretty sure the rules for it were invented a lot later, when people realized they might have to teach it. This is why when it comes to english, I prefer to be practical: If it's understandable by everyone involved, it is "good" language. If nobody understands it, it is "bad" language. Whether the words are on the approved list or not is pedantic and not useful.

Re:Gained respect for NYT

[bigstrat2003]

Yeah. Not only that, but anyone (eg: the submitter) who thinks that Twitter is in any way pushing the NYT into obsolescence is insane. Twitter is inane and stupid, the NYT is actual, you know, news.

Other variations on news may or may not be making the NYT obsolete, but Twitter has not a damn thing to do with it.

Re:Gained respect for NYT

[jimbolauski]

The hyphen was removed in 2000 it was part of the fix for the y2k bug.

Re:Gained respect for NYT

[digitig]

Tweet is not standard English, at least not yet.

According to the Complete Oxford English Dictionary:
"tweet, n. and int. An imitation of the note of a small bird. Also repeated."
"Hence tweet v. trans., to utter in this way, to twitter; also transf." [my emphasis]
It's been standard English since the middle of the 19th century. With variant spellings it goes back at least as far as the 16th century.

He has a point

[peacefinder]

Imagine imagine yourself reading the NYT archive from the 1920s and finding "flivver" or "flapper". Now imagine someone in a hundred years reading the archive of the now-current NYT and finding "tweet". Same deal.

He's may be too uptight* about it, but his idea is not completely without merit.

[*: 40 years ago?]

Re:He has a point

[Mr. Freeman]

"Tweet is a word"
Tweet is what a bird does. Tweet does not, officially, mean "to submit a text string to twitter.com". The problem using "tweet" is that it's slang. Slang terms are unprofessional. You might as well allow NYT editors to write articles like "Popo caps a bitch after she tried to jack a 7-11" instead of "police shoot a woman after she attempted to rob a convenience store".

This entire situation is not a matter of "do people understand what we're saying?" It's a matter of "Is this professional". Of course people know what the word "tweet" means, but the issue is that it's not professional.

And responding to the assertion that twitter will force out the NYT: bullshit. Refusing to use slang terms in a professional publication does not ensure said publication's demise. In fact, it ensures exactly the opposite, that people will still regard the NYT as a professional publication with real writers, not some website where anyone can post literally anything without even the most basic fact checking.

Re:He has a point

[Brett Buck]

.

Slang terms are unprofessional. You might as well allow NYT editors to write articles like "Popo caps a bitch after she tried to jack a 7-11"

Finally a Slashdot post I can understand!

Re:He has a point

[thenextstevejobs]

" You might as well allow NYT editors to write articles like "Popo caps a bitch after she tried to jack a 7-11"

Are you listening NYT? I will buy print and web editions of your paper, as well as follow you on Twitter if this starts happening.

Agreed

[Concern]

Sounds like good editorial policy to me.

"Tweet" is almost as bad as "blogosphere."

Re:Agreed

[Kjella]

I know some people are opposed to every new word, but personally I think tweet is one of the better. It was obviously established as a word long before Twitter, at least as far back as 1942. The analogy between a short chirp and a short message works very well with very low probability of confusion, particularly since birds tend to do it all the time for no apparent reason and Twitter users... well, you get the idea. It works in Norwegian too, we have translated to tweet (birds) which is to "kvitre" and people use either that or "tvitre" to be more similar to English. I'm fairly sure this one is here to stay just as "to chat" or "to text", even if something else than Twitter becomes the way to do it.

Re:Agreed

[sortius_nod]

It's amusing that geeks hate these terms, but the unwashed masses love them. The seem to think it makes themselves sound "edgy" or "with it", meanwhile, anyone who knows more than how to use the odd website and check email don't use them.

I've never said "blogosphere" except to take the piss out of someone/something, and "tweet", well, I just tell people they have "twat" or are "twatting".

Re:Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

Chance has, I am archeologist of future. Traveled now for investigate your strange word usage {tweet | kleenex | slashdotted}. Also your convoluted sentences for {articles | compounds}.

Thanks arguing for obviate my job, insensitive clod!

Re:Agreed

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I just try to work the word 'twit' into the conversation in place of 'tweet' whenever possible. You need to do so as if you didn't notice any difference.

Is that because it's actually silly or because being annoyed with it makes you look like you're ahead of the internet curve?

I don't mean to sound insulting, I just think geeks in particular like to grumble about things that are loved by the masses in order to seem above average. I'm not too proud to admit that I do that.

Re:News flash

[bonch]

No, it will not forever be the term. "Tweet" is a very Twitter-specific term, and a stupid one at that.

Who is this guy kidding?

[kentrel]

The NYT isn't going anywhere. It may have to evolve to stay afloat, but it'll outlast Twitter for sure. Even if it didn't, it will be better archived for future generations than Twitter will ever be. Digital social media platforms barely last 5 years before their popularity starts to wane. They also have that signal to noise ratio that's a nightmare for any archive or researcher. They also certainly don't have any obligation for fact checking. Fake NYT news stories aside, at least you know a quote is probably a real quote, whether its taken out of context or not is another argument.

Anyone of note still swapping news stories on Friendster? ICQ? Even myspace? Hey remember keyboard cat? Chat roulette?

Twitter has some longevity and will be around for 10 years at least, but I'll give it 3 more until its replaced by a new, better, fad. Actually scratch better. Twitter is inferior to almost every communication medium out there. Lets say, simpler, and by luck, more popular.

I was walking by some laptop users the other day and heard an ICQ "Incoming message" alarm. Lik

A weak chirping sound

[tepples]

Tweet is not standard English

English has no normative standards body, but a few U.S. dictionaries define "tweet" as "a weak chirping sound".

Re:A weak chirping sound

[M. Baranczak]

US English has a few unofficial standards bodies, and the NY Times is one of them.

Re:News flash

[Hognoxious]

How many expression are in everyday use even thought there original meaning is archaic?

Please tell me you did that - all of it - on purpose.