pyrrhic victory

Without googling, do you know what it is? Would you ever allow it to run in the lead of one of your reporters' stories? Or would you say that your readers probably aren't smart enough to know what it is, and edit it out?

 

yes

no

 

What he said. On both counts.

 

I hate thinking that our readers aren't smart enough to know what it means.

Then I answer their phone calls.

 

Why?

 

yes
maybe

 

yeah, because I know our readers

i don't want them to have to work to read a story. I don't want them to feel like a writer is talking down to them.

 

I'm of the opinion that if you're asking yourself if it will be over your readers' heads, you've already answered your own question. I once used onomatopoeia in a lede, correctly, but still regretted it.

 

I'd allow it, as long as it was capitalized.

It bothers me that editors would "dumb" down a reference because they don't think their readers are smart enough, or perhaps a better term, informed enough, to know what it is.
Perhaps they will go to their dictionary and learn something.
Or better yet, the writer is skilled enough to let the reader know what a Pyrrhic victory without reprinting a definition.

Its attitudes like those posted here that condemns the country to American Idol, Deal or No Deal and George Dubya

 

its a victory that comes at such a cost that it is practically a defeat

Should Bush win in Iraq, it will be a Pyrrhic victory

 

that's quite a leap.

no, you have to know your readers. we want people to read the paper, not toss it in the trash because they don't know what the hell some guy's lead is about