Yeah, I did actually know that, but I have always thought that spelling it “lede” was sort of a pretentious and showy way of proclaiming oneself a “true” journalist rather than simply trying to communicate to ordinary people. The concept being conveyed is in fact the same concept usually captured by “lead”, but old school journalists spelled it “lede” within the industry so as not to be confused, in writing, with the part of old printing presses called the “lead” (pronounced “led”). To ordinary, non-journalist readers who know nothing about printing presses, spelling it “lede” is more likely to be confusing or lead them to think it was a spelling error, and spelling it “lead” will convey exactly what is supposed to be conveyed. That is why I used “lead”.
The other point of comparison would be with David Petraeus and his retention of classified material which was also shared with a ghost writer.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/fbi-petraeus-shared-top-secret-info-with-reporters-224023
That is indeed a good comparison.
"Talk about burying the lead. "
It's "bury the lede"
Yeah, I did actually know that, but I have always thought that spelling it “lede” was sort of a pretentious and showy way of proclaiming oneself a “true” journalist rather than simply trying to communicate to ordinary people. The concept being conveyed is in fact the same concept usually captured by “lead”, but old school journalists spelled it “lede” within the industry so as not to be confused, in writing, with the part of old printing presses called the “lead” (pronounced “led”). To ordinary, non-journalist readers who know nothing about printing presses, spelling it “lede” is more likely to be confusing or lead them to think it was a spelling error, and spelling it “lead” will convey exactly what is supposed to be conveyed. That is why I used “lead”.
Anyway, thanks for the comment!