RSS705 Years Later, Dante Would Be Ashamed of the NYT
Jun 11
The standards editor at the New York Times has passed an edict (or banned or as he states editorial guidelines) forbidding the use of “tweet” for non bird or onomatopoeia related usage; in other words, Mr. Phil Corbett has decreed that the NYT will not recognize the word tweet in relation to Twitter.
In his own words:
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.”
I have to say I can see the argument and the justification Mr. Corbett is using. You don’t want to be lured into using a new technological term like (made up) “bilzbop” for it to fade away over night. But his weak discussion and hiding behind some ideal “standard” English is troubling. Of course, this new usage for tweet has not yet been recognized by whatever higher power recognizes and labels words as “standard”. That takes time and usage. But not just usage by every day people. No, it requires usage by the “standard” bearers.
And here is my problem. English is a language of the people. It is a living language and it should be treated as such. As words grow in usage and receive different meanings, the language and the people who use the language should not wait on some “standard bearer”.
This style edict is all the more troubling when you realize that it continues to reinforce archaic media walls. Old media versus new media mirrored in the behavior of dead language and living language. I am not, nor would I ever dare, suggest that the Times begin to speak in broken internet short hand. I would ask them to consider a few things though:
- When brevity and page space matter, why use several words for one?
- When clarity matters, why not use the exact term?
- When you are battling for your audience and part of that battle involves the vernacular of your readers, what do you lose by embracing the term from a service that you yourself use?
- And, lastly, if your pride yourself on the motto, “where the conversation begins”, why are you letting others dictate the terms of your conversation? Seven hundred years ago, the poet Dante explained that the vernacular was the more noble language over Latin, because the vernacular was the language of the people. That it was the language that was natural to us. Like babies learning new words, our language grows with us on a yearly basis. And it grows quickly, with reckless abandon.
As it should.
And as your audience falls away to the bloggers and other new media, you have to ask not just who you’re having that conversation with, but how and why you use the words you use. Because really, it might not be a big deal to not use “tweet” or our fictional “bilzbop”, but as we push forth with new ideas and new technology and new devices, waiting around for the standard bearers to say “its okay” isn’t going to be okay when you have no one left to say it too.
The text of Mr. Corbett’s comments came from The Awl.