news-record.com

BLOGS

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

The Editor's Log

Using courtesy titles

Sue Polinsky wrote a blog post that turned into a newspaper story which turned into another blog post. (Glad to help, Sue!) She passed along a question from a friend who wondered why we don't use courtesy titles -- Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. -- before people's last names.

The New York Times does -- almost alone among daily newspapers, I think -- and, Sue says, it adds a bit of class.

Ever since I've been in the business newspapers haven't used courtesy titles for men. My guess is that it had to do with saving space, but I don't know. The Associated Press, which publishes the stylebook that we and most newspapers use, didn't drop the use of courtesy titles for women until 2000. For most writers it was a relief -- no longer did you have to ask a woman if she preferred Mrs., Ms. or Miss.

Ms. Polinsky -- while I know she's married, I didn't ask her which title she prefers so I'm guessing here -- is right that it adds class, even to newsmakers who may not deserve it. But it's an informal time and getting more informal by the moment, judging by the e-mails I get from people I've don't know attempting to sell me something.

What do you think? Use them or not?

Here's a little history. And John McIntyre's thinking.

Permalink
Tags: Style

Posted by John Robinson on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 10:20 am

What do you think?

3 comment(s)

Read other visitors' comments.

Other Recent Entries

Lorraine Ahearn, published author (Nov. 7)
The value of comments (Nov. 6)
The Yankees at the beginning (Nov. 5)
30 years ago (Nov. 3)
The violence around us (Nov. 3)

RSS: Subscribe to this blog

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

SueP

June 29, 2009 - 2:23 pm EDT

Thanks for the hits, JR, and just to clarify, it's OK with me if you use a last name but my friend in DC thought it was a bit "off-putting" (his words). He mentioned that the NYTimes uses "Mr." for everyone (even for criminals and terrorists) and wondered why the N&R didn't. Showing my age: it seems OK to use it for men but somehow a little odd for women.

I remember once supporting a friend during a trial and when I arrived, I asked the on-duty person in which courtroom they were hearing the case for the (I swear I said it) "gentleman" (who did the bad thing) and then said, "He's certainly no gentleman."

Mark Binker

June 29, 2009 - 7:28 pm EDT

Once a person is convicted the New York Times no longer applies the courtesy title.

And the Washington Post does not use honorifics on second reference in their copy. I wonder if your Washington friend finds that off-putting as well.

Mark Binker

June 30, 2009 - 5:46 am EDT

I am reliably informed (by someone who works at the Times) that titles are kept post-conviction...despite what open-source versions of the NYT stylebook say. (I'm too cheap to buy the real thing.)

Hence, I guess we still have "Mr. Madoff."