New York Times Bans the Word "Tweet"

A memo by the New York Times standards editor, Phil Corbett, was leaked to a political blog last week. In the memo, Corbett declared that “outside of ornithological contexts, ‘tweet’ has not yet achieved the status of standard English,” and advised writers to abstain from using the word. Therefore, short of reporting that a bird’s unrestrained tweeting caused a disruption at a town hall meeting, Times writers are effectively forbidden from using “tweet” to refer to a message posted on Twitter.

Times writer Dave Itzkoff confirmed the memo via Twitter.

The various forms of social media technology carry with them the potential for ‘dumbing down.’ Twitter’s 140 character limit seems to target language as the most unavoidable casualty. Credit must be given to the Times for trying to set a higher journalistic standard, even if that standard borders on pedantic snobbery.

Language is flexible, constantly in flux. Colloquialisms and neologisms can enter proper vernacular, and become acceptable as standard. For instance, the word “Google” (noun, verb) has become so firmly embedded in our lexicon that people no longer search for things on the internet, and instead just “Google it.” But a continued unwillingness to embrace the fluidity of language solidifies the status of traditional media outlets as present day, journalistic dinosaurs.