NY Times Bans The Word "Tweet"
So I just read this article *See Link Above* and apparently the New York Times has decided to eliminate almost all use of the word "tweet." Reason being? The term isn't standard English, and according to standards editor Phil Corbett, "...standard English is what we should use in news articles." He states that while someday the term may become "as common as email," right now, it has no real place amongst the pages of the publication.
Now, as a young journalist (with the college loans to prove it) and someone still trying to get a secure professional footing in the media industry, here is my problem with this. I can't fathom a scenario where I would interview for a position and those interviewing me would breathe a sigh of relief when I told them that I stand in firm opposition to all forms of social media. That I hate it, don't support it, don't believe in it and would then proceed in a round of high-fives throughout the room. Telling someone you'd like to work for in editorial, some form of online publishing, PR etc. is a joke if in the next sentence you're saying that you don't have a Twitter account or have at least attempted to understand it and can perhaps see its benefit.
Social media is where we are. What publication doesn't have a Twitter account or Facebook fan page? Further, which of them can say that these and other various forms of social media like Reddit or Gawker have not helped maintain or increase their readership or fan base in a time where actual paper continues on its slow and painful nose dive into oblivion? And because that is the case, how can anyone, a powerhouse like The Times especially, turn their AP Style-loving, literarily-snobbish noses up at what is a major component of both the present and future of journalism? Because that is essentially, in my humble opinion, exactly what they're doing by putting "tweet" on an indefinite time-out.
Needless to say, no cool points to them on that one.
No comments:
Post a Comment