

New York Times Bans the Word 'Tweet' - joubert
http://www.theawl.com/2010/06/new-york-times-bans-the-word-tweet

======
grellas
The problem with this memo is that it conflates the use of "tweet" as a noun
(useful and precise) with its use as a verb (much too casual for formal use).
I agree with the author as to the latter but not as to the former.

There are some contexts in which a certain level of formality helps keep an
elevated tone that suits the forum. I think the New York Times is one such
forum. It has a long tradition of maintaining "standard English" and at least
some significant portion of its reader base might be jarred should its
reporters suddenly lapse into forms of expression that depart sharply from
that standard.

"Tweet," though, at least when used as a noun, is really what I would call a
"term of art," that is, a form of expression that captures a range of
attributes not easily otherwise expressed except in wordy or imprecise ways.

Casual-sounding as it may be, it is the one word that describes perfectly the
form of short message that one transmits to those to whom one is connected on
the Twitter platform.

Thus, in one word, it describes:

1\. The type of platform on which the message was sent (Twitter).

2\. The fact that is 140 or fewer characters and hence either a short phrase,
single sentence or two, or other informal expression of thought about a
subject (as opposed to any form of carefully developed argument or
expositional form of expression).

3\. The fact that it is sent originally to those who are "following" such the
sender, who may be but likely are not intimate with the sender (Twitter being
a very public platform).

4\. The fact that such a message can easily be spread virally by those
followers to others who are in turn "following" them or can be linked to from
a wide variety of sources from all across the web.

Given that the paper's own (highly skilled) writers had used it 18 times
within just the past month confirms this. "Tweet" (used as a noun) is a good,
solid word - precise, accurate, pithy, and almost certainly carries a meaning
that is well known to anyone who knows what Twitter is. I don't think it has a
good substitute that is not either wordy or imprecise compared to the word
itself. That is why it is a useful term of art. For that reason, it makes no
sense to dissuade use of "tweet" as a noun, and I think the memo author is
plain wrong on this.

I would side with him, though, when it comes to "tweet" as a verb (as in, "I
will tweet you"). This is much too casual for a formal publication such as the
times. There is of course nothing wrong as such with this verb, and the issue
is strictly one of tone. But the author is right that, in terms of tone, the
word is misplaced in this particular publication.

Edit: point well taken, ismarc - a different rationale from that of the memo
writer but a sound point about avoiding reader confusion, at least until the
term acquires broader general usage.

~~~
ismarc
While I agree that tweet as a noun is defensible, and is an exacting term, I
wouldn't expect its use from professional journalists in a non-tech report
without qualification about what the term refers to. It would be like using
any other niche specific term without qualification. A good example would be
etude, musicians and classical music enthusiests will immediately know it, but
an average reader will not, even if the term is a similar term of art.

~~~
_delirium
You can sometimes get around that with a brief inline gloss, like "Obama sent
a tweet, as messages on the service are called, expressing his wish for...".

------
chc
It seems quite sensible to me. There really is a significant portion of the
population that has never even heard of Twitter (remember, there are lots of
people who try to sign in to Facebook by typing "facebook login" into Google
and blindly clicking on the first result), and they're probably
disproportionately well-represented in the Times' readership. It's not about
hating the word "tweet," just about "tweet" not being common among the 6.5
billion people who don't use Twitter.

~~~
Tichy
I think I might just have got the concept of a conservative newspaper. The
idea is to never shock your readers with anything out of the ordinary.

~~~
ugh
Clarity. That’s the idea. Don’t use words many of your readers won’t
understand (except for special effect).

“She wrote on Twitter …” is much clearer then “She tweeted …” and it seems
obvious to me that whenever writing formally, you should use the first. Just
as you would write “He searched the web …”, not “He googled …” in formal
writing.

~~~
moolave
It definitely has something to do with formal editorial usage than drinking
the Kool Aid amongst many institutions. But because of this single word
"tweet", almost everyone in pop culture can get a good sense of what this
writer is talking about by remembering this new phenom. The only culture
barrier that I see is if institutional writers do not want to use the word,
then it won't change the Twitter ecosystem.

As a matter of fact, Jack and the team initially did not like using that word.
It was only when the Twitter ecosystem starting vastly adopting it that they
finally adopted the term. Pop culture, once again, wins.

------
Mgreen
Banned?

FTA: _“Tweet” may be acceptable occasionally for special effect._

Definitely not banned.

------
hristov
Makes perfect sense to me. That will have additional advantages as it will
allow the Times to weed out a lot of fluff pieces about who tweeted what.

------
siculars
I seem to recall more than a few articles over the last decade on how best to
refer to the internet, or web sites or email.

The tip of the spear is always the smallest, but hardest point. There will
always be some new communications medium that only a rarefied few use and
understand before the rest of the world catches on. In that in-between time
there is apathy, confusion and even resentment.

------
Grinnmarr
According to Dave Itzkoff, an employee and frequent contributor to the NYT,
this is a hoax. <http://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/15847765293>

~~~
donohoe
Nope, not a hoax, but not a 'ban' either

------
sfphotoarts
I presume ornithology articles are exempt from this.

------
est
from the guidelines

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

> If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

~~~
stanleydrew
Flag it then. Meta-comments like this aren't very useful.

------
alexandros
There is a certain irony in claiming that '"tweet" has not yet achieved the
status of standard English', and yet "it has appeared 18 times in articles in
the past month, in a range of sections".

Surely, the NYT considers itself a good sample of standard English usage?

------
T_S_
I am banning the phrase "reach out". Call or email me if you object. Tweeting
is ok too, if I am following you (unlikely), but please don't reach out to me.
_edit grammar_

------
mikeleeorg
That seems a little futile to me. It's like trying to ban "google" as a verb.
Or "xerox."

NY Times' standards editor Phil Corbett can set whatever rules he wants for
the paper, but his disdain for this verb isn't going to influence all of the
blogs, the social media, and other publications in using it.

~~~
Locke1689
_NY Times' standards editor Phil Corbett can set whatever rules he wants for
the paper, but his disdain for this verb isn't going to influence all of the
blogs, the social media, and other publications in using it._

I don't think he's trying to. I think he's saying that Twitter is not yet in
the standard English lexicon and should therefore be postponed from appearance
in the NYTimes. If at such time it does become as popular as Xerox or Google
then perhaps they will reevaluate their stance. As far as his position on
usage outside the NYTimes, he may personally dislike the world but
professionally I don't think he cares either way.

~~~
jfarmer
I was at a wedding two weeks ago, filled with non-technical, non-Silicon
Valley folks and in one of the songs before the wedding they ad-libbed in the
word "tweet" for "call" or "write" or some other verb.

Everyone in the audience got the joke and laughed.

~~~
deno
Though it should be noted that you only need just enough people to get the
joke for a whole audience to laugh.

------
grandalf
Considering the embarrassing way that the NY Times has attempted to transition
into the digital age, this is not really a surprise. Consider:

\- The Times has tried twice to create paywall models that have utterly
failed. The idea was to charge to read Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman. Utter
disaster b/c nobody really values them all that much even though they get a
lot of web traffic when free.

\- The Times does very little investigative journalism of significance.

\- The Times has strong pretensions, as evidenced by its coverage of socialite
weddings, etc.

\- In the buildup to the Iraq war it was the Times' sloppy fact checking that
sold the war to many, many people who had been skeptical prior to reading its
coverage.

\- The Times attack on the Pulse news reader turned what should have been
superb publicity into a petty attack on a small startup that obviously loves
the Times.

For all its flaws, it's still a great paper, but far less great than it once
was or than it could be if it had more sense and guts and had to fight harder
to maintain its position.

Banning a word like "tweet" suggests an annoying sort of editorial rectitude
that is at least as unbecoming as any of the foibles mentioned above,
especially in light of the Iraq war fact checking fiasco. We have wars going
on and all sorts of corporate fraud and the Times is wasting ink (or pixels)
on why it banned a silly sounding word?

~~~
donohoe
Ok, where to begin...

\- "The Times has tried twice to create pay-wall models that have utterly
failed"

Um, not true. They did it once. It was called Times Select. It actually worked
quite well, however the advertising market picked up in a big way where
revenue from ads would exceed subscriptions. Not the case anymore, but thats
another story.

\- "The Times does very little investigative journalism of significance"

Ok, I'm gonna leave this one alone. Clearly we are on different planets.

\- "The Times has strong pretensions, as evidenced by its coverage of
socialite weddings, etc."

I guess so... ? Is it? I mean its not tabloid, but I think thats good, right?
Whats the "etc"?

\- "In the buildup to the Iraq war it was the Times' sloppy fact checking that
sold the war to many, many people who had been skeptical prior to reading its
coverage."

I'm not sure how this relates to helping your point about "transition into the
digital age" or the whole "tweet" thing.

\- The Times attack on the Pulse news reader turned what should have been
superb publicity into a petty attack on a small startup that obviously loves
the Times.

Yeah, I personally think that was short-sighted.

"For all its flaws, it's still a great paper, but far less great than it once
was or than it could be if it had more sense and guts and had to fight harder
to maintain its position."

Been waiting to say this... ahem..."{citation needed}"

"Banning a word like "tweet" suggests…"

Okay, I think you need to re-read the article (or maybe I do). The word is not
banned, it is highly discouraged. It does give examples where "tweet" is
appropriate so therefore it is not banned.

"We have wars going on and all sorts of corporate fraud and the Times is
wasting ink (or pixels) on why it banned a silly sounding word?"

The Times is also wasting many hours every day on things like lunch, coffee
breaks, expense reports, HR policies and the like. Don't they know there is a
war on!?

And to re-visit the "embarrassing way that the NY Times has attempted to
transition into the digital age", I just want to say this:

\- NYTimes.com is 83rd Most-Visited web site on the Internet (1st for
Newspaper) according Google: <http://bit.ly/bsbBMB>

\- <http://developer.nytimes.com>

\- <http://open.nytimes.com> (my favorite:
[http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/self-service-
prorat...](http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/self-service-prorated-
super-computing-fun/) )

\- <http://www.nytimes.com/timeswire>

\- <http://www.nytimes.com/timesskimmer>

\-
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadoop#Hadoop_on_Amazon_EC2.2FS...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadoop#Hadoop_on_Amazon_EC2.2FS3_services)

And in case it does come up, this is entirely my own view and not that the
Times at which I work but I'm not in editorial or anything like that. I just
felt that while you made some good points you were off-base on a few.

To wrap up, I just re-read what I wrote above and it could come across as
snarky which is not my intention, rather I was aiming (badly) to be a little
tongue-in-cheek.

~~~
grandalf
Good points. I admittedly was a bit unfair. I do think it's a great paper. I
guess I just have a bit of a bias against things that come off as "language
police" activity.

------
Tichy
"Tweet" is already on Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweet>

So anybody reading the NYT could easily look that up, in case they lived under
rock for the past three years.

