Saturday, June 12, 2010

to tweet or not to tweet, that is the question


phil corbett, the latest standards editor at the new york times, issued a memo to staff asking writers to abstain from using the word "tweet."

while acknowledging that new words are created all the time for our ever-growing technology, he noted that not everyone uses twitter and therefore may not be familiar with what a "tweet" is. he said it isn't standard english, "and standard english is what we should use in news articles." he went on to say that the new york times doesn't "want to seem paleolithic and favors established usage and ordinary words over the latest jargon or buzzwords." (ok - quick show of hands…how many of you reading my blog, excluding my mom, know what "tweet" means, but need to look up what paleolithic means? mom - we all know you know what they both mean :) click here for an article highlighting the top words nytimes.com readers looked up in the last year using the site's online dictionary tool).

but i digress, corbett went on to say that should the new york times choose to make an exception to the no "tweet' rule, it will be for special effect. he said: "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...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."

my point, and i do have one...is with this story being in the news, and the new york times being a newspaper, how are they going to be able to report that they have stopped using the word "tweet" without using the word "tweet?"(deep thoughts). what's your point?

Followers

Search This Blog