Stephen Colbert Joins the Battle Over the Word "Tweet" [VIDEO]

Credit:

Colbert starts off his segment by lampooning the NYT for "banning" the word "tweet." (The fact that the paper "banned" the word isn't quite accurate. According to Philip B. Corbett, the associate managing editor for standards, the NYT believes that the word should be used for special effect only.) After quoting Corbett as saying that "'tweet' will fade into oblivion" (which I guess is wholly possible -- buh-bye "Web site"), the comedian wraps up his faux fit with the harrowing sentiment: "Twitter hasn't banned the word 'newspaper' and those have already faded into oblivion." Burn.

Still, Twitter isn't free from Colbert's caustic wit, either -- after commenting on the microblogging site's World Cup-induced downtimes, the host laments his inability to bore his followers with such mundane sentiments as: "Found crumbled up piece of paper in pocket. more to come!" However, this brief interlude is quickly interrupted by a call for viewers to retweet the sentiment, "in honor of oil-soaked birds, 'tweets' are now 'gurgles,'" in order to raise money for Comedy Central's charity, Address the Mess, which is helping with recovery efforts in the Gulf.

In short, the segment wasn't the most even of Colbert's shtick, but it did have some interesting points: the death of newspapers, the tendency for people to say too much via Twitter, the power of the tool in the realm of social good, etc, etc.

But here's what we're wondering after watching this brief clip: What do you think of the battle over the word "tweet"? Do you think Twitter could, in fact, fade into oblivion? Or does the service, and its vocabulary, have staying power -- especially in light of the eagerness of so many organizations to embrace it?

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c