[citation][nom]czar1020[/nom]I think the whole twitter thing is crap, facebook is falling in right behind along with all the other crap...Really who cares... Mabye im just anti social and don't care who/what your doing.[/citation]
+1 Amen to that brother! Now we just need 3D to die too and we will be one step closer to world peace/utopia
[citation][nom]maigo[/nom]people who read the newspaper don't have internet or comp-uters[/citation]
uh yeah... people in this day and age still read newspaper, be it in print form or on a computer, its still "the newspaper" for it comes from that proper company. the new york times distributes it's news on their website as well as in print. Other methods may be available but it is still the use of a word that in which the connotative definition does not match its denotative definition. Good move NY Times.
I'm glad to see this term abolished in news articles. Just gotta hope there will be a way to have people refrain from using "words" in the real-world such as "lawl". It's embarrassing to be around those people.
Thank you NYT. Unfortunately, this action will only slow down the degradation of the English language. It is a shame that, generally speaking, the media does not hold itself to a high standard regarding the use of slang.
[citation][nom]polly the parrot[/nom]What if theres an article about small birds, then you can't say that they're tweeting? I have a bird. It tweets. (But it also chirps)Hey, maybe I can make a social media site called 'Chirper'.[/citation]
Read the article: tweeting is allowed when related to ornithology, where it is a well established word.
On topic: I completely agree a newspaper should avoid words that aren't in a language's standard vocabulary. Language evolves and that's a good thing, but imo publications should only follow that evolution when a word is already well established (for example through widespread dictionary adoption)
If you take NYT from 50 years ago, you expect to understand every word you read there, right? Now, imagine somebody young 50 years from today read in today's NYT that somebody tweeted something. Would not that be silly? (Unless, of course, Twitter will exist in 50 years, which is hard to imagine)
I'm glad that memo was put out and the NYT is banning the word. Journalism has gone to hell in a hand basket in general. Routinely I find grammar errors and miss-spellings that even I, who does not posses a degree in English nor journalism see quite obviously. So I say stick to formal English, and screw the rest. And as far as spelling errors go, F7 is a freaking GREAT button, use it once in a while (Especially smaller papers)