spaghettiwesternTrump Told General Milley to Banish Wounded Military Veteran From Events: ‘No One Wants to See That’
The headline buries the lead. He calls all soldiers “killers.” This an article everyone should read.
Buries the lede*
bob_wileyProbably not though…
poynter.org/…/lead-vs-lede-roy-peter-clark-has-th…
Sounds like it was used in telegraphic printout and that’s about it.
【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】Wow can find anything on the internet.
It is lede.
Maybe they don’t use that when publishing blogs but it’s used in serious formal writing, academia and law.
You clearly didn’t even read the article, or even skim it. It’s not referencing blogs.
And by your own standard of serious formal writing using it… this is Lemmy.
Well then. Let’s check the authority on diction…
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bury
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lede
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lead
Which noun form of lead can be “buried,” such that the sentence has prepositional phrase agreement? Talkin’ 'bout physically burying something underneath backfill.
With lead, I’ll concede people have fucked it up enough in modern usage to warrant entry in the dictionary, but it’s a quatiary definition, 2(f)(1).
And for lede? It’s not numbered, lettered, and numbered again, because it’s the only thing lede means. That’s how you should write. Clear, concise. Good diction.
It’s a fairly new word. From what I could find it was added to the Webster’s dictionary in 2008.
proofed.co.uk/…/idiom-tips-bury-the-lede-or-bury-…
And to the Oxford dictionary in 2015.
www.oed.com/dictionary/lede_n2?tab=meaning_and_us…
First usage seems to be around 1950, give or take, depending on the source.
The idea that this is a term common in old news rooms feels dubious at best. The inclusion in dictionaries in 2008 and later suggests that this became an “actually it’s lede” comment on the internet that caught on to the point of inclusion. The explanation provided in the link I posted, which is sourced around 1950 seems most probable and implies a very specific usage that is not relevant for general use. I have to assume this was something an English professor told to classes to sound smart and it slowly morphed and spread from there, picking up steam in the internet age.
Most sources seem to say either are acceptable, so this whole thing is rather silly. As only a fairly limited subset of the population knows what “lede” means without looking it up, “lead” seems to be safer word to use for broad understanding. Concise words are great, but only if the average reader knows what they mean.
Acceptable maybe, but one is more correct. And lede is more correct because of what it evokes, the typesetter moving the lines of movable type, literally burying the lede.
Considering the word didn’t enter the dictionary until after typesetting died, you’re sounding like this line from the original article I posted.
‘Lede’ is an invention of linotype romanticists, not something used in newsrooms of the linotype era.
It was in fact used by typesetters as jargon in the linotype era. And when it entered the lexicon more broadly, I had a very specific meaning, the same meaning which it still has.
The lede is the opening paragraph. This was not hurried.
I hate trump. But is he wrong? American soldiers are killers. Willingly joining wars where they are the aggressors and bomb schools and hospitals.
Not every soldier carries a gun. 70% of the US military is logistics.
I can't find the original comment but I think somebody said once that the real sign of the strength of the US military is that they can set up a Taco Bell anywhere on Earth in 72 hours.
The US military has an ice cream barge. A navy vehicle specifically for producing and distributing ice cream to their soldiers in combat arenas.
Sounds way better than that shit wax chocolate in MREs.
Well, it had one in WWII which is almost more impressive
Even if he is right, he owes it to people to make the POLICY ARGUMENT rather than just shit on some veterans to protect his brand.
If he came out and said “veterans make Republicans look bad because of all their bad wars” maybe we’d cut him some slack.
The average teenager has no realization about that stuff. The three main motivators for military service were (and remain) escaping poverty, service tradition, and ideology. And once you’ve enlisted the only choice is war or prison.
I have a lot more scorn for the adults that let Bush do it then I do for kids who didn’t have a chance in hell of realizing what this country does with soldiers and veterans.
The overhead to support one soldier is massive. But if we want to start referring to soldiers as killers, disparage the military, and make people think badly of them, then why spend so much money on it? Or do we just want to entice people to do a job everyone will look down on, blow a bunch of money on something everyone thinks is terrible, and treat those people like shit?
Yeah it’s not news that reminding people of the Iraq war makes Republicans look bad.