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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...".
Wait—but items 2-4 are also implied by item 1. "Tweet" is just a jargon-word for "Twitter message" or "Twitter post", conveying no extra significance or connotation, and the Times standards editor is correct that journalists should avoid argot and jargon whenever possible.
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.
> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
So by getting into the standard English lexicon (whatever that is??), every speaker of English automatically understands the word "tweet"? Fascinating how these old timers achieved automatic updates.
What is the standard English lexicon, who maintains it, and why is it accepted as an authority? Why has it not been replaced by the internet yet?
You seem to be seriously confused on the meaning of "lexicon". The standard English lexicon is defined as the words and expressions a standard English speaker knows. If everybody understands "tweet", then it is part of the lexicon, and nobody can decide otherwise.
It's not about his disdain for the word, it's about maintaining a vocabulary that alienates no one. As it is, even if it's been around for ages from our perspective, there are technophobes out there who have no idea what a tweet is. For their sake, it makes sense for NYT writers to abstain from using a word with less than 100% language penetration.
With that understanding I'd just like to inject my own personal feelings onto this matter. Technophobes are like a hindrance on mankind's progress. While I don't think it would be nice (or even advisable from NYT's own business perspective) to make them feel uncomfortable, the technophobes need to feel uncomfortable about it so that they can be pushed towards acceptance of the world around them.
No word has 100% language penetration, and if the NYT desires to simplify down their writing to the point at which almost everyone can read it, they're going to have to ban words like colloquialism and paleolithic as well.
If people don't understand a word, they should look it up.
But they can't look up "tweet" in a standard English dictionary, at least not stating this kind of meaning - that is, an update on Twitter (don't hang me up on the specifics, Dane here.)
Yes, the question is not merely one of penetration, nor of avoiding arcane usage, but rather whether the word is standard English. There's no easy way to define that, which is why NYT employs someone to decide for its writers. Three criteria important for Corbett are mentioned in his missive: "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." Each criterion seems reasonable to me. Lots of words start off life as neologisms or colloquialisms and become standard. Corbett is just saying that 'tweet' in non-ornithological contexts isn't there yet. I think the argument is indefectible (one of my favorite standard English words, though it's not in the spell-check dictionary).
There's a line to be drawn somewhere. At one extreme, the content is buried by the obscurity (but precision) of the language used. At the other, the content is lost to words that are too general, that have essentially no meaning. It's like trying to highlight a certain point using a laser so fine it can't be seen, or a lantern that illuminates the entire area. (Obviously they just need a flashlight.) To maintain a balance between educated and readable, they have a standards editor.
"Web search" and "photocopy" are perfectly fine alternatives. Neologisms have their place, and they enter common vernacular for a reason, but I can't help but cringe when a journalist is reporting on the "Twitter-sphere", getting worked up about how teens are "sexting", or anything like this. The Times is better than Fox News, and I expect more professionalism. I'm probably just crotchety, but I expect different levels of discourse from different mediums.
The comments here have entirely changed my mind (cheers for that). I totally agree with you now. I've also cringed at journalists using too much vernacular (so I was obviously being a hypocrite in my first comment; shame on me).
And you are absolutely correct - in professional reporting, clear language should always be used, not colloquialisms. It makes for much clearer and unbiased reporting.
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?
The paper should do better. But one of the things it tries to do well is language use, and one of the reasons it does it well is that it has people like Corbett working on the problem of what constitutes good writing and usage. Words matter, even if "tweet" is not a good example of why they matter. Corbett and his predecessors have done all kinds of interesting stuff, some of it fun, some educative, but some serious, serious especially when it comes to reporting on war: Do you call this group terrorists, or insurgents, or resistance fighters; do you call that group anti-Israeli, or humanitarian, or pro-Palestinian? We've taken this memo out of its native context and taken it as a sign of some deep problem at NYT in its relation to technology, but "tweet" is a drop in the ocean of language problems that Corbett deals with. Check out some of his public musings here: http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/author/philip-b-corbett/. I see no reason why an institution as important as the New York Times should not do a whole lot better in the ways you suggest, and also continue to try to set some basic standards for writing.
- "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
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.
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.
