A Question of Honorifics

By Clark Hoyt

A reader, Victoria McCoy, wondered why I didn’t call Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the publisher of The New York Times and chairman of its parent company, Mr. Sulzberger on second reference. It occurred to me that others may wonder why I never use Mr., Mrs., Ms. or other honorifics, when The Times always does.

Here is McCoy’s message and my reply.

Dear Mr. Hoyt,

First I read Frank Rich’s column in the 7/22/07 Times: Mr. Vitter, Mr.
Condit, Mr. Bush, etc.

Then I read your column: “Sulzberger said. . . . ”

If the people in Mr. Rich’s column rate honorifics, how can you possibly
justify not extending the same courtesy to Mr. Sulzberger?

The Sulzberger family, like everyone else’s, cannot possibly be perfect.
But, unlike everyone else’s family, it gives the country and the world
newspapers that provide information and pleasure we cannot get elsewhere.
The *very least* Mr. Sulzberger deserves is the same courteous address
that he mandates for others.

•

Dear Victoria McCoy:

Thank you for writing and for raising the question of why I referred to Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. as Sulzberger, rather than Mr. Sulzberger, in my column this past Sunday.

I meant no disrespect to him. If you have read my previous columns — or those of Daniel Okrent, the first public editor — you may have noticed that everyone in them is referred to, on second reference, by last name only, without courtesy titles. For all of the more than 50 years that I’ve been reading it, The Times has always used Mr., Mrs., Dr. and — only more recently –Ms. in its news and opinion columns. So, why would I do something else?

One of the understandings I have as public editor is that I can write in my own voice, not subject to the newspaper’s rules of style. Many of those rules are virtually universal in the newspaper business, and I follow them as a matter of course. But The Times is rare among newspapers in using honorifics, and in a career of more than 40 years as a journalist, I’ve never used them. I’m not on a campaign to make The Times change its style on titles, although I think it is increasingly anachronistic. But, as an independent representative of readers writing in The Times, I will employ the style that is most comfortable for me.

You’re the first person who has raised this point with me, but other readers may wonder about it. Would you allow me to post your message and my response on my Web journal so that, if others wonder about this, they can find the answer?

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Clark Hoyt

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Joel Rennie July 25, 2007 · 6:42 pm

As a former copy editor at the long-defunct Houston Post newspaper, my working memory is that the omission of honorifics is simply a long-standing Associated Press Stylebook guideline.

I sometimes author Wikipedia articles on subjects of personal interest, including The New York Times and various members of its staff, and often use Times press releases as source material. When I edit out the honorifics that those press releases included, as I did in this instance:

//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Rosenthal&diff=143997276&oldid=143996732

… it is not out of disrespect, but only to convey an impression of neutrality and objectivity for those who will later read the article.

Pradeep Navaratnam July 25, 2007 · 11:26 pm

I support the use of honorifics and hope the Times will continue that tradition. One of the ways in which honorifics help is in the distinguishing of family members, in an article that involves – for example – a husband and wife bearing the same last name. However, I agree that their excesssive use in an article (with reference to the same person) renders the honorific redundant and the article, less appealing. The person being written about can also be described in a nameless fashion, by identifying him with his profession or his relation to the subject matter – such as “the professor,” “the former Senator,” or “the accused.” The use of honorifics must be preserved, but the preference to exclude them should not be discouraged. A good article should use a mixture of all three options: the use of honorifics, the use of last name only and the use of other terms described above.

readingglasses July 26, 2007 · 10:41 am

Honorifics may seem archaic, even quaint to Mr. Hoyt, but they are a mark of civility. (Now if the Times could just use noble titles properly upon second reference when they show up in stories or use them at all when writing about someone who has a legitimate title instead of reverting to some democratic but incorrect “Mr.”, but that’s another discussion entirely.) And I think that he should adhere to that Times style. It seems curious and strange that one contributor to the paper should be allowed to flout that in-house style out of sheer willfulness.

Joe Clark July 26, 2007 · 11:56 am

We’re here to report the facts. A name is a fact; a salutation is a convention, and often a loaded one (e.g., Mrs. or Miss). Conventions can be discarded.

Chucho July 27, 2007 · 6:19 am

I have worked at a couple of English-language newspapers abroad (in countries that still apply “anachronistic” style in terms of professional titles) and have confronted the honorifics issue more than once. I am against honorifics for the reasons described by, um, Mr. Hoyt :)

Professional titles in particular are used a lot in many countries: including Dr. for anyone who (ostensibly) has a Ph.D. and Eng., for Engineers (which is more or less somebody with a master’s degree, even unrelated to engineering in the conventional sense). I recall a study conducted by a Mexican newspaper that found a large number of politicians they investigated didn’t have the academic degrees that matched the titles (Dr. or Ing.). Many of them only got as far as bachelor’s degrees but because a professional title is so important they padded their academic background by adding the title.

This is one good reason not to use professional titles: by doing so the reporter is claiming that a source has a certain academic level s/he may not have. (I doubt reporters ask for proof in most cases.)

I always advocate the AP Style: no professional or courtesy titles except for “Dr.” when it refers to a person with a medical Ph.D. who is being cited in the story on the basis of that person’s expertise. (In other words: don’t use “Dr.” even for a heart surgeon being quoted on a subject unrelated to his or her expertise, ie, if you quote a medical doctor you run into in an on-the-street interview, on how much he likes ice cream in the summertime, don’t call him “Dr.”)

I agree the Times is anachronistic in this regard. It’s part of the paper’s annoying lofty style.

But before the Times works on honorifics I would advise its reporters and editors to declare a war on the word “indeed” which is nothing but pretentious trumpery that indicates that the following text will be a reporter’s own spin on the subject.

A. Robert Smith July 29, 2007 · 1:23 pm

The use of honorifics is common in editorials of newspapers that don’t use them in news articles, as one may note in the Washington Post, or the Virginian-Pilot, for which I was an editorial writer. It is a curious carryover perhaps from the days when editors were prone to greater formality of expression than reporters. Also, I suspect, the honorific continues to provide a judicious tone to an ediitorial scolding when the subject has earned the editorialist’s contempt.
A. Robert Smith
Virginia Beach, VA

J. Felton July 31, 2007 · 7:25 pm

THE COURTESY TITLE – THOUGH ANTIQUATED, AS THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH MEDIA EMPLOY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STYLEBOOK – IS VITAL IN THE DEFINITION OF THE NEW YORK TIMES’ VOICE. AND IT HAS ITS PLUSSES, AS SEEN ABOVE, AND CARRIES WITH IT A ROMANTIC EFFECT – AN OUNCE OF WISTFULNESS FOR THE OLD DAYS OF PRINT MEDIA, IF YOU WILL – THOUGH IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE CONCISENESS THAT MANY MEDIA, LIKE THE AP, STRIVE FOR.

ALL IN ALL – THOUGH IN SELECTING MY OWN HOUSE STYLE, I OMIT THE COURTESY TITLE – ITS PRESENCE IN THE PAGES OF THE NYT IS A MUST. I AGREE WITH THE PUBLIC EDITOR, HOWEVER, IN THAT HE SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO USE HIS OWN VOICE FOR LARGER ITEMS OF STYLE.

Sonia Katchian August 9, 2007 · 3:32 pm

The show-stopper for me is when the story is about indicted criminals, such as the gruesome Petit murderers of CT.

After reading the horrendous deeds of the men, to hear them referred to as “Mr.” just put a knot in my throat.

I vote for no honorifics for convicted criminals! My .02

Meredith December 9, 2007 · 4:04 am

There is nothing wrong with being polite, their use is a respectful and in general positive thing, untill as mentioned above, one looses the natural curtisy we all are due.

Bill Weeden April 15, 2008 · 7:54 am

I think the evolution of honorifics in the NYTimes is more than interesting. In the old days–back in the early 1960s, for example–honorifics were always used on second mention, except for convicted criminals. This seemed to me a fair and appropriate system. Then people like Spiro Agnew became convicted criminals and the rules changed.

Now, it seems convicted criminals get Mr. and dead people don’t. What an irony!