New York Times Bans The Word 'Tweet'
The New York Times doesn't want its writers to use derivatives of the word "Twitter."
Let's go ahead and get this out of the way. Here's the definition of "tweet" according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
- Pronunciation: ˈtwēt
- Function: noun
- Etymology: imitative
- Date: 1768
- : a chirping note
- tweet intransitive verb
Recently the latest standards editor of the New York Times, Phil Corbett, distributed a memo to the writers asking to refrain using all words associated with Twitter. This means they can no longer use "tweet" or "tweeted" or whatever else other low-life journalists are using to speak to the people of now.
Instead, New York Times writers must simply use "say" or "write" after establishing that Twitter is the medium in the topic. His argument is that--unlike the word "e-mail" which has become a standard term--readers outside the Twitter arena do not use words associated with the social website. Because of this, current "buzzwords" and "jargon" should be avoided.
Here's the memo in its entirety:
Some social-media fans may disagree, but outside of ornithological contexts, "tweet" has not yet achieved the status of standard English. And standard English is what we should use in news articles.
Except for special effect, we try to avoid colloquialisms, neologisms and jargon. And "tweet" — as a noun or a verb, referring to messages on Twitter--is all three. Yet it has appeared 18 times in articles in the past month, in a range of sections.
Of course, 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 over the latest jargon or buzzwords.
One test is to ask yourself whether people outside of a target group regularly employ the terms in question. Many people use Twitter, but many don’t; my guess is that few in the latter group routinely refer to “tweets” or "tweeting." Someday, “tweet” may be as common as “e-mail.” Or another service may elbow Twitter aside next year, and “tweet” may fade into oblivion. (Of course, it doesn’t help that the word itself seems so inherently silly.)
"Tweet" may be acceptable occasionally for special effect. But let’s look for deft, English alternatives: use Twitter, post to or on Twitter, write on Twitter, a Twitter message, a Twitter update. Or, once you’ve established that Twitter is the medium, simply use "say" or "write."
Is Corbett taking it a bit too far? Or does he have a point? Perhaps certain articles should refrain from using tweet references--those pertaining to business, finance, or other professional-based topics. However let's face it: the word "Twitter" and its derivatives have become descriptive of a current form of communication. It may be a fad, or it may be a permanent tool. Who knows. Nonetheless, Tom's is hip and cool, so I'm going to tweet tweet tweet tweet all the way home.
- Namco Bandai: Nintendo Markets Have Collapsed
- The Most Iconic Paper and Envelope Yet
- MotoCzysz E1pc Electric Race Bike Hits 140MPH
- The Biker Suit for Iron Man Fans
- Mi-Sport: The First Waterproof MP3 Headband?
- Simon Pegg Shrinks, Roasts Apple
- 22 New Gears of War 3 Screenshots
- Sprint: We Tripled EVO 4G Sales by Accident
- Sony: The PSP Go Was Kind of An Experiment
- Microsoft Announcing 3D Plans 'Soon'
- 2 GHz Motorola Android Phone May Arrive in Q4
- VIDEO: High-Res Footage of Ongoing BP Oil Leak
- T-Mobile: All Phones Free on June 19
- Panasonic Ships MASSIVE 11x6 Foot 3D TV
- Pro-porn Group Puts Porn on San Francisco iPads
- 5 Ways to Save Money By Using Tech
- Nokia Finally Jumps on Dual-SIM Bandwagon
- The Desk Every Modern School Should Have
- The Yahoo Giveaway USB Hub We Want
The word Tweet will die, a good 1st step.
That picture up top is awesome. Did you caption that just for this article or did you pull that from elsewhere?
people who read the newspaper don't have internet or comp-uters
The only word I associate with Twitter is Twit: a user of Twitter.
I think the whole twitter thing is crap, facebook is falling in right behind along with all the other crap...
Really who cares... Mabye im just anti social and don't care who/what your doing.
Seems like he's trying to preserve clarity and a professional attitude. Anyone else think writing about tweeting seems... amateur?
Only word I associate with Twitter is Twit: a user of Twitter.
people who read the newspaper don't have internet or comp-uters
Hmm, I do read newspaper when I don't have computer around, for example, Metro newspaper in buses.
and twats everywhere boycott the NY times; The NY times rejoices!
I think the whole twitter thing is crap, facebook is falling in right behind along with all the other crap...Really who cares... Mabye im just anti social and don't care who/what your doing.
+1 Amen to that brother! Now we just need 3D to die too and we will be one step closer to world peace/utopia
people who read the newspaper don't have internet or comp-uters
uh yeah... people in this day and age still read newspaper, be it in print form or on a computer, its still "the newspaper" for it comes from that proper company. the new york times distributes it's news on their website as well as in print. Other methods may be available but it is still the use of a word that in which the connotative definition does not match its denotative definition. Good move NY Times.
maybe he's noticing a correlation between "tweeting", birds and the people. People who "tweet" are bird brains
I'm glad to see this term abolished in news articles. Just gotta hope there will be a way to have people refrain from using "words" in the real-world such as "lawl". It's embarrassing to be around those people.
What if theres an article about small birds, then you can't say that they're tweeting? I have a bird. It tweets. (But it also chirps)
Hey, maybe I can make a social media site called 'Chirper'.
Thank you NYT. Unfortunately, this action will only slow down the degradation of the English language. It is a shame that, generally speaking, the media does not hold itself to a high standard regarding the use of slang.
What if theres an article about small birds, then you can't say that they're tweeting? I have a bird. It tweets. (But it also chirps)Hey, maybe I can make a social media site called 'Chirper'.
Read the article: tweeting is allowed when related to ornithology, where it is a well established word.
On topic: I completely agree a newspaper should avoid words that aren't in a language's standard vocabulary. Language evolves and that's a good thing, but imo publications should only follow that evolution when a word is already well established (for example through widespread dictionary adoption)
+1 for everybody! Apparently while Toms is "hip and cool", the rest of us feel that "tweet" should be omitted from articles.
If you take NYT from 50 years ago, you expect to understand every word you read there, right? Now, imagine somebody young 50 years from today read in today's NYT that somebody tweeted something. Would not that be silly? (Unless, of course, Twitter will exist in 50 years, which is hard to imagine)
I'm glad that memo was put out and the NYT is banning the word. Journalism has gone to hell in a hand basket in general. Routinely I find grammar errors and miss-spellings that even I, who does not posses a degree in English nor journalism see quite obviously. So I say stick to formal English, and screw the rest. And as far as spelling errors go, F7 is a freaking GREAT button, use it once in a while (Especially smaller papers)
IMO the evolution of language is inevitable and should not be resisted. That said, the purpose of language is to communicate and if using a word prevents some people from understanding, that word should be avoided. This also applies to “educated” words that are beyond the target audience’s reading level, despite the author’s urge to sound sophisticated
I know of Twitter, have used Twitter and I still hate the word "tweet". I say, "I posted on Twitter," not "I twitted."
Only word I associate with Twitter is Twit: a user of Twitter.
LOLZ, OH THE ORIGINALITY!!! You are criticizing a user of one social medium (twitter) by means of another (Tom's comment section)... and you don't see any problem with that apparently. Who's the twit now?
Seeing as he's talking about the use of standard English, he's starting an awful lot of sentences with conjunctions such as 'and' or 'but'.
The word Tweet will die, a good 1st step.
The only word I associate with Twitter is Twit: a user of Twitter.
+1 & +1
As for joebob2000...well...good point...you still won't get through to any of them.
All the words in the dictionary are made up by someone; I don't see the problem with tweet or tweeted. Pop culture is bigger than the new york times.
Who cares, it's not a big deal. Just like every other website, within a couple years nobody will use it anymore because it's "uncool" and there's something new. Look at MySpace for example.
LOLZ, OH THE ORIGINALITY!!! You are criticizing a user of one social medium (twitter) by means of another (Tom's comment section)... and you don't see any problem with that apparently. Who's the twit now?
You are, still.
@Kevin Parrish:
I like that picture LOL. Made my day. Thanks.
I wonder is a past tense tweet on Twitter a twat?
Twitter is a marketing tool, not a social tool.
people who read the newspaper don't have internet or comp-uters
I'm not sure what kind of world you're living in, but it sure isn't mine.