New York Times Bans References to "Tweeting"

I don't think it's a bad decision. I don't think the Times is "cowering from technological and linguistic evolution", but merely conserving a standard that they've upheld for years. The article suggests that they "drive and embrace the changes that are shaping global society". I think they are doing exactly that. The largest local metropolitan newspaper in the United States shouldn't have to acquiesce to how a particular technology is referred to. Once these twitter terms become as popular as the term email, the Times should be able to refer to it however they want before it reaches that level of popularity, and not be patronized for doing so.

Why should we all accept "tweet" and "tweeting" to be the standard way to refer to using that technology? Because the creators of it said so? What if twitter was called BEEPBLOOPBLIP? Would you, at the end of all your blogs, add, "Please BEEPBLOOPBLIP me if you like my blog"? Maybe the Times is ahead of the curve, demonstrating that we don't have to submit to these terms just because they're popular.

I don't think the Times would have referred to the automobile as a "horseless carriage". They embrace new technology, but are not bound by its jargon. I'm glad they did this. I think society could actually be a little more 'deft'. There will be more technologies like twitter in the future. Will we be forced to use the terminology used by its creators and the 15 year-olds that largely made twitter popular anyway?