'New York Times' bans 'tuchus', 'tweet'

The New York Times has reportedly refused to print the word 'tuchus', which is Yiddish for bottom.

Writing in The Atlantic, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg revealed that the newspaper asked him to use a different word when they quoted him for a piece about the Middle East.

Goldberg said: "I've been taking a fair amount of both 'ribbing' and 'joshing' from friends who objected to the use of the word 'tush' in a quotation I gave to The New York Times' Helene Cooper.

"I actually used the word 'tuchus', rather than 'tush', but she phoned back a couple of hours later to tell me that the newspaper's Special Committee for the Proper Deployment of Yiddishisms ruled that 'tuchus' is insufficiently elegant, and so could I please offer a substitute."

He added: "I asked Helene for a suggestion, and she came up with 'tushie'. I responded by questioning whether the word 'tushie' could be considered more elegant than the word 'tuchus'.

"I also told her that I could not allow myself to be quoted using the word 'tushie' because I am no longer 4 years old."

Meanwhile, an email from Times standards editor Phil Corbett leaked to The Awl revealed that journalists were asked not to use the "inherently silly" phrase "tweet" in their articles.

"Some social-media fans may disagree, but outside of ornithological contexts, 'tweet' has not yet achieved the status of standard English. And standard English is what we should use in news articles," he said.

"'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. Or, once you've established that Twitter is the medium, simply use 'say' or 'write'."