Apparently some of us journalist/blogger types have been throwing certain social media terms around willy-nilly before they've made their way into standard English. According to The Awl, Phil Corbett, standards editor at The New York Times has had enough.
Earlier this week Corbett sent out notice saying that ‘tweet' is one of those words that "has not yet achieved the status of standard English. And standard English is what we should use in news articles."
In other words, Corbett has banned "tweet" from appearing in the pages of The Time ("outside of ornithological contexts.) Did you get the memo?
As someone who is fortunate enough to still spend my weekdays working in the world of daily newspapers, I can respect what Corbett is allegedly trying to do -- prevent his publication from alienating readers by avoiding "colloquialisms, neologisms and jargon."
At the same time I can't help but wonder if his point is moot.
Social media seems to be everywhere these days. If someone hasn't already heard the word "tweet" refer to a Twitter post, update (or whatever you might call it) at least a half dozen times, they soon will.
What do you think? Is "tweet" common enough that Grandpa Joe will know what it means when reading the paper on his rural farm? Does it matter?