Should we bury this “lede?”

[Note: This post was published on November 23rd, but apparently some error caused it to return to draft status. It should now be properly visible.]

Late in this year’s election cycle, I came across an article that used a strange spelling: lede for a word that is traditionally spelled lead.

I first assumed it was a simple typo, but seeing it used twice in two sentences prompted me to look a bit deeper.

If the context doesn’t make it clear, the meaning of this lede (rhymes with “seed”) can be quickly uncovered: it’s an alternative spelling for lead, the important point of a news article, as in “the lede in Johnson’s story is that merchants are offering even greater incentives to shop on Black Friday than in previous years.” If an article doesn’t get to that important piece of information right away, traditionally within the first two sentences or so, it might be said to have “buried the lead.”

This unusual spelling (“lede“) is both old and new. It’s old because it draws upon the older phonetic spelling of lead, which more of less fell out of fashion when we left Middle English behind (beginning around the early 16th century). It’s new because the word was only pressed into service in this way within the past half century or so.

The received wisdom states that the lede spelling came into use in newsrooms to distinguish lead (rhymes with “heed”) from lead (rhymes with “head”). When written out, the journalistic lead (lede) can be easily confused with typographic lead (they’re homographs: words that are written the same but might — and in this case do — sound different).

This alternative spelling hasn’t caught on enough outside of journalistic jargon to make it into many dictionaries yet. OED hasn’t noted lede, nor has ODO. AHD and Merriam-Webster both include it, however, as does the inconsistent Dictionary.com. The etymology is fuzzy from the outset. Webster’s cites first use from 1976; Dictionary.com from 1965 (and AHD, at least online, not at all). But no online source offers an actual citation, making them all suspect. Obviously the word is in circulation, but it’s difficult to tell how much traction it has. I’m willing to accept that the word has been in use in this form for close to 50 years, but there’s a lack of hard evidence to prove it.

I’m able to easily find solid references online from the past five years, sketchier ones back to about 2000; beyond that it’s more difficult. (Have you ever tried doing research on a homograph online? I wish you luck, my friends!) Garner offers a solid citation for lede from 2002, and cautions that if used at all it should be identified as industry jargon. It seems a telling omission that the word doesn’t even appear in the AP Stylebook. Based on the frequency of use and overall tone of many references, the non-journalist is forced to question whether or not the lede spelling is common even in most journalistic circles (any reporters and newspaper editors out there? feel free to jump in).

For the sake of clarity, I feel safe recommending that non-journalists avoid using the lede spelling entirely. The support for that spelling is extremely weak. If you’re working in journalism, however, you have more options. Internally, it will depend on the standards of your organization: some will tolerate, prefer, or even expect the lede spelling; others will not. Even as a journalist, however, it’s probably a good idea to restrict the use of this spelling to internal communications; when you’re writing for public consumption (as with the article in The Atlantic that opened this post), it’s best to use the traditional and standard lead spelling.

= = = = = = =

As an odd follow-on to those interested in some additional controversy involving lede, consider taking a look at this discussion on Wikipedia. It generates a lot more smoke and heat than light, but reveals how people can become very persnickety and emotional over this kind of issue.

Advertisements

About thebettereditor

Chris holds a BA degree in history from the University of Virginia and a Master of Fine Arts (MFA) Degree in writing from the University of Southern Maine (Stonecoast). He has worked extensively with professional and semi-professional writers and enthusiastic amateurs for about 20 years. He has several years experience in scientific publishing, but has also worked in information technology, insurance, health care, and education (he taught writing at the university level for a number of years). Since 2011, he's also specialized in helping small business meet their writing and editing needs on a budget.
This entry was posted in Language, Uncategorized, Words, Writing and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Should we bury this “lede?”

  1. Jeremiah says:

    Intereseting. I can’t recall when I first learned the word “lede.” I’ve always understood its journalistic meaning and have considered substituing “lead” as incorrect. I didn’t realize that it was both archaic in age, yet young in usage.

  2. Pam Phillips says:

    Not sure when I first heard the word “lede”. I do enjoy The Lede blog at the New York Times. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/
    I think I’ve also heard “lede” mentioned by On The Media.
    http://www.onthemedia.org/

    • Hi, Pam – NYT’s The Lede has been around for several years (I had trouble finding a launch date, so if you know it, please share).
      On The Media is a great show – I listen whenever I can (which isn’t very often, sadly). So I was curious about their standard and did a little checking on their site.
      Results? If they have a standard, they’re not terribly consistent. I found only 9 unique uses of “lede” there, and 4 were in comments from readers. I found “lead” (in the same context) 16 times (but didn’t break this down by content vs. comments). Curiously, while they sometimes use “lede” to refer to “the lede *of* a story,” they never use “lede” to refer to “the lead story” (which is a construction they actually use about twice as often). It would seem a natural extension, though, wouldn’t it?
      I’d have to say that this reinforces my suggestion to be wary of this spelling: if your in-house style calls for it, use it. But if even a shop like OTM hasn’t settled on a consistent use, it’s probably safe to avoid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s