pyrrhic victory

[Rusty Shackleford]

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?

 

[write then drink]

Without googling, do you know what it is?

yes

Would you ever allow it to run in the lead of one of your reporters' stories?

no

 

[Ellis Redding]

Without googling, do you know what it is?

yes

Would you ever allow it to run in the lead of one of your reporters' stories?

no

What he said. On both counts.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

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

Then I answer their phone calls.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Without googling, do you know what it is?

yes

Would you ever allow it to run in the lead of one of your reporters' stories?

no

What he said. On both counts.

Why?

 

[spnited]

yes
maybe

 

[write then drink]

Without googling, do you know what it is?

yes

Would you ever allow it to run in the lead of one of your reporters' stories?

no

What he said. On both counts.

Why?

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.

 

[Ellis Redding]

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.

 

[EE94]

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

 

[Flying Headbutt]

I'm all for using words that read beyond the 6th grade level, but I'll admit I don't know what it means. And believe me, I fully support those who "teach to the top of the class" per se.

 

[EE94]

I'm all for using words that read beyond the 6th grade level, but I'll admit I don't know what it means. And believe me, I fully support those who "teach to the top of the class" per se.

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

 

[write then drink]

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

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

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Most people are not stupid. The attitude of any paper should be their readers are all above average, as proven by their intelligent decision to buy said paper in the first place.
Prryhic victory has been an accepted phrase in the English language for centuries. If the writer was justified using it in the lede, it should stay, whether or not some guy on the desk knew what it meant.
People can get dumbed-down information anywhere-the net, local TV news, talk radio. Newspapers have nothing to sell besides the idea they're a source of information for intelligent readers.
Everytime we act otherwise, it's just another act of slow-motion suicide.

 

[EE94]

I can't agree more with Gee's reasoning.

Write then drink presumes to "know" his readers and figures most will stop reading his paper if it publishes material "above their heads."
That's a patronizing attitude to have and one that potentially blinds you from covering events and news and producing new features that might attract new readers.
My guess is WTD is more afraid of the reference than his readers would be.

I'd be interested to see the actual lede or story that prompted this thread in the first place.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

Of course I know what a pyrrhic victory is. That's when it looks like a weiner, right?

 

[Ike Broflovski]

I understand what you're saying, Mr. Gee, but, as write-then-drink pointed out (probably before drinking), I don't think we should have to make people work -- or, even worse, run to the dictionary -- to understand what the hell we're talking about. That may sound like I'm arguing for dumbed-down information, but I'm not.

I think there's a fine line with this kind of stuff, and we should have an idea of where that line is. "Pyrrhic victory" crosses it, to me, because, in my mind, not enough people would know what it is. I can't define "not enough," but to me, there are other ways to say this that more readers would understand. "Victory at a huge cost" is roughly the same thing.

 

[doctor x]

Column, yes. Gamer, no.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

It's another cliche, only it's had more staying power than the rest.

Strike.

 

[buckweaver]

Yes.
Maybe.

If the rest of the story makes the phrase's meaning clear enough to any reader who doesn't know what a Pyrrhic victory is off the top of their heads, then it's acceptable. ... But if a writer uses that phrase and then the rest of the story doesn't explain why the victory came at a great cost, then it's not acceptable.

But truth be told, there are many, many instances in sports where this phrase could be used. (Most recent case in point: Nadal's grueling five-set comeback over Murray in the R16 could be seen as a Pyrrhic victory, if it made him too exhausted for last night's QFs. Gonzalez's beatdown of the No. 2 seed certainly makes a strong case for that.)

Therefore, this is a phrase that is perfectly acceptable in a sports story.

Let's quit dumbing down the newspaper. Let's quit dumbing down society.

 

[friend of the friendless]

Sirs, Madames,

I know what it is, I would use it without hesitation but according to a quick search I haven't used the term in the last 11 years. I once had "schadenfreude" bounced back on me--an editor sustituted a very wordy dictionary definition instead. Same ham-hander made my copy nonsensical by changing "celerity" to "celebrity."

YHS, etc