Honestly, this is a genuine question and not my attempt at troll bait. FWIW, I listen to National Public Radio quite a bit. I voted for Kerry and I am far from a Bush loyalist. However, I am curious. I thought that the President of the United States is supposed to be addressed as “President XXX” or “Mr. President” and after serving their term in office would then be addressed as “Mr. XXX” or “Former President XXX.” Is NPR intentionally slighting our current president by frequently using “Mr. Bush said in an speach today…”?
Again, I’m not trying to start a war, just trying to get clarification on ettiquette/grammar and something that strikes me as odd every morning/evening.
That is a good question. I will pay a little more attention for the next couple of days and see. However, let’s say they do us “Mr./Mrs./Ms.” instead of “President/Prime Minister/Senator XXX,” I wonder what their motive would be if it goes against proper convention/grammar.
I listen to NPR a lot and guess I haven’t picked up on that one. My peeve is the use of pleaded instead of pled. As in ‘Mr. So-and-So pleaded guilty to the charges’. It tears my heart out every time I hear it.
I am a supporter of the President, and hearing him referred to as Mr. Bush does not bother me in the least. It seems to me that it shows respect for him and his office while also demonstrating a republican anti-class sentiment that is appropriate for America.
Now, I was listening to NPR last night (gotta keep up with what the enemy is doing, right) and heard a reporter from The Economist refer to the President as “Bush”. That did bother me, both as a grammar issue and because it shows disrespect to both President Bush and the office. I try to use the appropriate term when referring to politicians that I do not like because some civility makes the debate more about ideas. For example, I generally use the term “President Clinton” and not “the Draft Dodging, Dope Smoking, Tax Evading, Sleazeball from Arkansas”.
This is a style most commonly used by the New York Times.
On first reference, they use the formal title (President Bush) on all subsequent, the ‘social’ title (Mr. Bush).
This is not something the newspaper just invented for Bush; it has been in force for many years for all presidents (yes, even Democrats). It’s a way of showing more respect, not less, since most newspapers use only last names on second reference (to save space), without repeating any titles.
I think that the New York Times uses “Mr.” even when referring to those with Ph.Ds and M.D.s, which makes it really interesting when they refer to some as “Dr.” instead of “Mr.”
.
My understanding of the convention is that Mr. is always an appropriate substitute. It is frequently used in the military in place of rank. Rather than having to address someone as LCDR Jones all day, you could just as well call him Mr. Jones.