'New York Times' Bans the Word 'Tweet'

But it appears that part of the problem is that the Times audience doesn't know what a tweet is. So will they know what a Twitter post is?

They'll probably have to say something like, "in a message sent out on the social networking site Twitter..."

 

I was defending the use of FCS from the old man's attack and was not dealing with the tweet issue.

 

Actually, the title of this thread is wrong. The Times did not ban the word.

An editor at the Times made a good suggestion, which is that journalists use words that the readers will understand. As the Times standards editor said, there are times, in context, when the word is the right one, but without the context many readers will not know what's meant. In other words, write clearly.

As he himself says, his pay grade isn't high enough to start banning words.

http://is.gd/cKxsg

and

http://www.slate.com/id/2256665/

 

What pisses me off is they'll ban the word "tweet" but assume everybody knows the meaning of those $3 words they use, just to prove to everybody else they know what they mean.

Does that make sense?

 

W.H.O. C.A.R.E.S.

 

It depends what you mean by a $3 word? A word with more than two syllables?

 

Seemingly

 

Ohio

 

Worst. Haiku. Ever.

 

If the NYT sends me to the dictionary on occasion to look up a word I didn't know, at least I got a little smarter.

Reading "So we're chillin' at C-Webb's crib in D-town . . . " in ESPN Magazine makes me feel about 20 IQ points dumber.