We have to rethink what we call sections and segments. The titles we give are dated and decided by tradition. Not good enough. This can get you into trouble. Doesn't it seem odd that that TV and Web programming news is listed in the New York Times under 'Arts'?

It makes sense that there is an "Arts" section in the New York Times. New York City has a marvelous and constantly changing art world. And there was a time when "Arts" was the right word: Which museum shall we attend today? What exhibit is opening? Is Fred Astaire in that new Broadway show? Who is the conductor at the Philharmonic? And so on.

But as new forms of entertainment came along, they all got crammed in, under a masthead that doesn't quite capture their meaning, nor describe their medium (or quality, for that matter).

I'm not going to go down the path of "What is art?" But surely articles about celebrities, reviews for DVDs and video games, and a whole lot of television don't meet the conventional meaning of art. And they certainly aren't the things that spring to mind for the Web audience when they hear the word "art."

Want a simple focus group: Find a 25-year-old. (Although I bet this works on nearly anyone.) Simply ask: Name five things that you associate with "art." I bet you'll mostly hear about things find in a museum - paintings and sculptures - and then music and maybe theater. (So many musicians and "serious actors" prattling on and on about their art and all...)

So if we're heading our section with the wrong word, what's the point? Tradition? Even cop-out words like "Living," "Life," and that ilk don't cut it. Hey, 25-year-old, what do you associate with "Living?"  

So what's wrong with "Entertainment?"

Too pedestrian? Too dumbed-down? How about "accurate?" How about a word people hear and are immediately interested? Everyone likes to be entertained. People know what they're getting with "entertainment." It will pass the 25-year-old test immediately. More importantly, "entertainment" is a heck of a lot better keyword for search online than "arts." You're in a new city. You're looking for something to do with your family. Are you going to search "Cityname Arts" or "Cityname Entertainment?"

The same holds true for "Business." Old. Staid. Boring. So much of the business section isn't about business. It's about personal finance or items that are in the financial realm and are therefore placed in a business section. But USA Today has this right: you're in the "Money" section. "Business" is a dull word. But what better eyecatching word is there in the English language than "money?"

"Health" is a good choice. That's probably because it's a fairly recent addition to the lineup. Recent by journalism standards, anyway. I bet if it dated to 1920 or so, we'd still be reading the "Medicine" section. 

Sports gets to be "Sports." No confusion there. We don't call it "Athletic Endeavours" or some such 18th century anachronism. "Travel" is great - it's a call to action, for crying out loud. It might as well have an exclamation point on the end. This is our Travel! section. Hey, 25-year-old, Travel! (Actually, I kind of like that. Steal the idea. All yours.)

Update the titles and tell the audience what they're getting. They're searching online now. The more precise you can be, the better. The good news is that you can meta-tag your stories with lots and lots of keywords. This entry will have several meta-tags so people searching for different terms will see this among their options.

As we reinvent, think about every term. How did we come to use it? If we were to start our company today, is it the term we would use?

"Because it's tradition" isn't a good enough answer. "Because it's what the audience wants" is the only answer.