We got a bizarre memo in our inboxes just THE other day from our editor-in-chief telling us THAT we were to completely capitalise every tenth word in OUR copy or we'd face strict consequences, and to make UP at least one past-tense phrase per article. This COMES following the news that The New York Times has MADE an editorial decision (or eddo) to ban the word TWEET from its paper.
Phil Corbett, standards editor at The NY Times, reckons that "to Tweet" is made-up nonsense AND doesn't fit with the rest of the paper. He SENT out an email to staff first mentioning that yeah, SOME social-media (or is that social media, or 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.
"OF course, new technology terms sprout and spread faster than EVER. And we don't want to seem paleolithic. But we FAVOR [sic] established usage and ordinary words over the latest JARGON or buzzwords."
Ordinary words is right - just yesterday at a working MEN'S pub we heard a joiner say 'paleolithic' seven times IN a single sentence.
The New York Times sure doesn't like to lead THE way, especially with language in technology. As many forward THINKING and established news organs over here in Blighty agree, THERE'S no need to capitalise the 'i' in internet. However THE New York Times, as well as Associated Press, have STUBBORNLY refused to make the switch to lower case.
"Our CURRENT style is to keep the uppercase "I" [for Internet]," CORBETT told a friend. "I agree that the trend is TOWARD lowercase, and I suspect that at some point we WILL review our style. But our preference is to follow ESTABLISHED usage, not to lead the way. So I can't PREDICT when the change might be made."
The same friend INFORMED us that Ted Anthony, an editor at Associated Press, WOULD be for a change but it's such a big DEAL that we'd expect to see a press release issued FIRST.
Which is all fine - freedom of the press (to QUIBBLE over grammar) and all that. We must say, however, THE New York Times seems to be pretty keen to USE the Apple-approved syntax for iPad. Shouldn't that be IPAD, or Ipad, or ipad?
On the day in 2010 when the New York Times and the Associated Press finally issue a press release to all American newspapers and magazines [editors, for the most part; most American and Canadian readers could care less!] about the need to start lowercasing the word INTERNET in all news articles and headlines IN USA newspapers, except of course when the word starts a sentence....
1. THE USA will, as a society, have finally acknowledged a deep shift in the way it thinks about the online world.
[Hat tip to John Schwartz, writing in 2002 in the New York Times, in a profile of Dr Joseph Turow at UPenn, the article headlined "Who Owns the Internet?"]
2. The USA , as a society, will have given substance to the belief, finally, that the internet is part of the everyday universe and not some uppercase novelty
3. The USA will have come to understand that capitalization of internet earlier in history seemed to imply that
reaching into the vast, interconnected ether was a brand-name
experience when it wasn't.
4. THE USA will have realized that the earlier capitalization of internet seemed to place an inordinate, almost
private emphasis on it, turning it into a Kleenex or
a Frigidaire. But we now know that the internet , at least philosophically, should not be
owned by anyone and that it is really part of the neural universe of
life.
5. THE USA will have realized that the digital revolution was over, and the internet won and that it is part of everyone's life, as common as air and water (neither of
which starts with a capital letter).
6. THE USA will have realzied that the moment was right, to treat the internet the way we refer to television, radio and the telephone.
7. THE USA will have realized that the New York Times was right back in 2002 when it said that there is some virtue in the theory that internet is
becoming a generic term, and it will not be surprising to see the
lowercase usage eclipse the uppercase within a few years. (hat tip to Allan M. Siegal for that one!)
BONUS: THE USA will have joined the UK and NZ and OZ in correctly lowercasing the word......internet!
The ‘Tweet’ Debate Continued
by Phil Corbett, NY Times
After I distributed the in-house version of After Deadline to my colleagues last week, word leaked out that I had supposedly “banned” use of the word “tweet” to refer to messages posted on Twitter.
I had suggested that outside of ornithological contexts, “tweet” should still be treated as colloquial rather than as standard English. It can be used for special effect, or in places where a colloquial tone is appropriate, but should not be used routinely in straight news articles. I had made this point before; my memo was simply a reminder.
Reaction outside The Times was swift, widespread and often negative. The scorn we encounter from traditionalists for allowing “data” as either singular or plural — previously my benchmark for an incendiary stylebook issue — pales in comparison.
One interesting note: Of the dozens of blogs and Web sites worldwide that weighed in, exactly two actually contacted me directly to ask about the issue. To them, I pointed out that my note to colleagues did not attempt to “ban” the use of “tweet.” Regular readers of After Deadline know I seldom attempt to ban anything outright — partly to leave room for editorial judgment, and partly to avoid demonstrating how little effect these memos really have.
But except for special effect, we try to avoid colloquialisms, neologisms and jargon. “Tweet” — as a noun or a verb — 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.” Some day, “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.”