The rapidly aging and highfaluting Old Gray Lady has slapped a merciless ban on the word "tweet."
Why, you ask?
Well, according to New York Times standards editor Phil Corbett, "tweet" has not yet achieved the glorified "status" of a "standard" English term.
"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," Corbett complained in an internal memo obtained by The Awl.
"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."
Nevertheless, Corbett did concede that "tweet" could one day be as common as the term "e-mail."
"Or another service may elbow Twitter aside next year, and 'tweet' may fade into oblivion. [So], '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."
Uh, huh. And the Times wonders why readership and circulation have declined?!
Clueless! So friggin’ clueless!
But rest assured, dear reader. We at TG Daily have no intention of following the NYT’s misguided and rather paleolithic boycott.
So, here’s one for you Corbett, in true Bronx Cheer style: TWEET, TWEET TWEET!