New York Times Bans Use of Word "Tweet" 426
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.
Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone had to do it.
Gained respect for NYT (Score:5, Insightful)
I cringe every time I hear the word 'tweet'.
He has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
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?]
Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like good editorial policy to me.
"Tweet" is almost as bad as "blogosphere."
I'm with the palaeolithic dude (Score:4, Insightful)
This obsession of tech companies with co-opting or coining their own verbs is pretty annoying. If you really must make words up, stick to proper nouns and quit polluting the rest of the namespace.
What's wrong with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
This doesn't sound like an Onion story to me. The Times is trying to establish a professional standard of writing, and "tweet" is a silly slang phrase that very well could be obsolete next year if Twitter is no longer as popular. The submitter's quip at the end is trying to turn this into a social media versus old media fight, but the Times is right on this one.
Re:News flash (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it will not forever be the term. "Tweet" is a very Twitter-specific term, and a stupid one at that.
He is right (Score:3, Insightful)
Who is this guy kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Gained respect for NYT (Score:1, Insightful)
Agreed. The point of the original poster seems to be "Gee, look how silly NYT is being." But the NYT is right. Tweet is not standard English, at least not yet.
But then (and I don't care if it dismays the marketing departments), I don't "google" either, I do a web search, I don't use "Kleenex," I use facial tissue, and I don't "Xerox," I copy. I guess I don't accept blatant attempts to commercialize generic English terms. And why should anyone?
--This message brought to you by Kraft Macaroni and Cheese (R). It's the cheesiest (TM).
Re:Gained respect for NYT (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:He has a point (Score:3, Insightful)
He is only going to use language that never looses meaning through time? yeah, good luck with that.
It's also a disingenuous way to represent the current culture climate.
Re:He has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
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:News flash (Score:4, Insightful)
In my humble opinion, "twit" seems a perfectly cromulent word for senders of Twitter messages.
Stupid Words and "Paleolithic" Media. (Score:4, Insightful)
"... 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..."
Nice snarky little jab there, but I find the notion of social networking sites supplanting established mass media and news to be as far-fetched as it is reprehensible. Maybe they work on a grassroots level as a bit of a 'complement' to traditional news, but other than that I see no indication whatsoever of them holding their own vis-à-vis peer review, integrity, fact-checking or social responsibility. If this does indeed happen (personally I believe the submitter was just grasping at straws), I'll hold even less hope for humanity in general than I already do, and that ain't much.
Re:Gained respect for NYT (Score:2, Insightful)
Heck, I'm still annoyed at "website".
I'm still annoyed at "blog". But "blog" and "website" describe things for which there is no other word, so I'd say they're valid. Twitter, on the other hand, is just a blog with a ridiculously small size limit, so there's no good reason to make up a new verb for it.
Re:A weak chirping sound (Score:5, Insightful)
US English has a few unofficial standards bodies, and the NY Times is one of them.
Re:Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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:He has a point (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
I think the problem there has less to do with professionalism than with the fact that the slang version is simply hard to understand. News writers favor plain, direct, comprehensible English. There is no benefit gained by obscuring your story with pointless colloquialisms.
Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Agreed (Score:3, Insightful)
If the word gains traction over time (instead of joining the graveyard of Internet Fad Words), it will gradually begin sounding more mature and ordinary. Then writers and editors will change their attitude towards it.
But right now, the problem is not its construction or metaphorical appropriateness, but its newness, its faddishness, and most of all, the "feel" of it in English, which I can best describe as "twee." [merriam-webster.com]
Re:Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Thank God (Score:4, Insightful)
Now if only we could get them to ban reporting on twitter whatsoever, that would be real progress.
Re:Thank God (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. I don't even use Twitter, but I do use LinkedIn, and some moron there just had to copy a Twitter post from one of her friends saying "taking the kids to [some event]". Who cares?
Re:Agreed (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely disagree. "Tweet" is something that birds do, and is a perfectly fine term for that. However, we don't need to repurpose common words for new internet fads, and then use these in professional writing. It's just confusing to anyone who isn't knowledgeable about all the latest stupid fads, and worse, if someone reads an article from today 25 years from now, long after this fad has probably faded away just like many things during the dot-com era, they'll probably have no clue what the author is talking about if he uses the word "tweet".
Re:Gained respect for NYT (Score:4, Insightful)
"Tweet", as in something that birds do, is indeed standard English, just like "meow" and "woof".
"Tweet", as in something to do with internet posts, is NOT standard English. It's just a stupid fad that will be forgotten in 5 years.
Re:Stupid Words and "Paleolithic" Media. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thank God (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Agreed (Score:3, Insightful)
People who dont use twitter, you mean. What else would you call "the act of posting to twitter"?
I would call it "posting" just like I do when I post on a forum or facebook.
Re:Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Thank God (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NYC (Score:3, Insightful)
I have visited NYC a few times now and I sincerely hope you don't consider the native speech there to be representative of proper American English. It's a weird and extremely grating nasal abomination punctuated by such erudite phrases as "you douchebag, ya scumbag".
Picking that region and main newspaper for some "lesson" in proper speech is weird. It's completely alien to the rest of the nation. It really should be its own city state, I would be thrilled if they removed themselves from the US actually, or they were asked to just leave, and take their newspapers and so called financial "industry"-the white shoe boys gangster mafia-with them.
The New York Times does not publish in the dialect(s) of the common citizens of that New York City. It has been regarded as a "paper of record" for most of its existence and is more formal about adhering to an academic writing style than most other newspapers.
Re:Thank God (Score:3, Insightful)
I just wish "blogosphere" would fall into disuse. It's a terrible word, and encapsulates everything wrong with buzzword-seeking-management speak and about breathlessly jumping on the most recent bandwagon.
Re:Thank God (Score:3, Insightful)
I am thankful that the language is living and even evolving - but needless change is still needless. Introducing the word 'tweeting' does not really add much meaning to the language. A message posted as a tweet is not inherently worth more (or less), just by virtue of being transmitted via twitter.
The words computer or PC means something that you couldn't easily use a single pre-existing word for.
Re the French - it's not that the government is trying to guide the growth of the language, but rather trying to control or restrict -- with I find worse.
So, recap: Bringing in a new word which replaces something that before you would have had to describe in a lot of other words - that makes sense.
Replacing an existing word for no big gain does not make much sense and does not do language a favour.
I need to see whether I will find it again - but I do remember reading something about the danger of English breaking apart because it's absorbing way too many words from way too many different languages and cultures, in too short a time. This might leads to rifts in English being 'different' in different areas (and by different I mean well beyond simple differences in local dialects). This might end up in English becoming LESS of an international language that promotes understanding.
Re:The Internet HAS no words of its own. (Score:2, Insightful)
Post as a verb has been used since at least 1630 to mean 1 a : to publish, announce, or advertise by or as if by use of a placard b : to denounce by public notice c : to enter on a public listing
The word Internet is derived from the prefix inter- (carried on between) and network. Internet.
Both of your examples have their roots in standard English. Stop being obtuse. This is about using, for example, tissue over Kleenex or cotton swab over Q-tip.