On the Good Morning America ticker (scrolling across the bottom of the screen), they refer to Obama as “Mr. Obama” but Biden as “Vice President Biden”… is there a reason for this?
It may have been on second reference. Many news agencies use “President Obama” on first reference; “Mr. Obama” or just “Obama” on second reference. Plus on a ticker, they’re going to conserve space. Here is a story that discusses it; there are others.
I agree that the most likely explanation is that Obama’s name gets mentioned about 50 times as often as Biden’s so the need for the VP title is greater.
Besides, did you ever watch Jaywalking? Most average adults in America apparently have no idea who the vice president is.
ETA: Serenata knows about that other thread. The OP asked this exact question there but got no answer.
I missed that, my apologies.
Your answer seems the most likely if journalistic guidelines would not be the reason.
Yep. I asked it there, got no answer, so I figured that people weren’t seeing it. I started a new thread to make sure I got an answer.
Thanks for the answers everyone! The space saving answer makes sense.
Isn’t “Mr. Obama” a slightly offensive way of referring to him, given that it ignores his highest and current honorific, “President”? I haven’t heard anyone use it myself but I remember someone saying on here that conservative talk show hosts like O’Reilly have called him Mr. Obama, and it strikes me as being derogatory.
As others have noted, many/most style guides use “President Obama” on first reference and “Mr Obama” on all other references. They’ve been doing that for decades, Obama is no different.
As to O’Reilly, he can use what he wants.
They also called the last president “Mr. Bush” instead of President Bush.
This was also the subject of the linked thread. As I posted there, not only is “Mr.” correct but I don’t remember any discussion of its being incorrect before this year.
Can anyone speculate what has changed?
People are being vigilant for offenses against Mr. Obama to be irate about.
Nah, people have this discussion every time there’s a change in administration. There was more than one thread on this very board in 2001 decrying the Liberal Media for using the phrase “Mr. Bush.”
I’m talking about Presidents in general, I just used Obama as an example. Why is it not considered derogatory to refer to a President as “Mr …” in the same way that it would be for a doctor or a professor?
It’s just convention. When you become president you don’t immediately lose the title Mr. It’s not a direct analogy by far, but it probably illustrates the point; in the UK ‘mister’ was a title of honour for doctors who became surgeons in the 19th century, and is standard practice today. It’s not considered derogatory in the UK or a decrease in status to be referred to as ‘mister’. Perhaps some may read ‘Mr Obama’ and think this is making him seem lesser than someone who says ‘President Obama’, but it really isn’t the case.
But it is considered derogatory in the UK to refer to a Lord or a Sir as “Mr”, because the higher honorific takes precedence there. Why isn’t President the same? They keep the title for life, just like peerages and knighthoods…
English does not have to be strictly logical, which is a good thing because it never is. Language usage just is. It’s a matter of custom and tradition and what people feel like.
However, this particular example is a poor one. Lord Baltimore, e.g., is the man’s name. All peerage titles are part of the person’s name.
Elected titles are not part of one’s name and do not get kept for life and so there is no reason to apply the same rules in the first place.
The courtesy of referring to a former holder of a title is not in any way the same as having a title for life or a title as part of one’s name. That’s why formal protocol rules emphatically do not consider it valid to call Clinton or Bush “President.” It’s good etiquette to obey formal protocol rules.
Very few of us know the first thing about protocol or formal etiquette, of course, which is why former presidents are always called President. That’s usage and it’s proper usage because usage is entirely about context and none of us are ever in a context in which formal protocol matters in the slightest.
So. If you are talking to Obama, you call him to his face Mr. President. If you are referring to Obama, you call him President Obama, the President, or Mr. Obama. Same with Bush or Clinton. All three are valid because that’s how good writers of English use the terms. No other justification is necessary or possible.
Oh, I certainly agree that it’s a regular thing. I assume the people in 2001 were on the other team and looking for offenses against their guy to be irate about. I don’t mean anything bad by it; I just mean it’s political in nature.
Does English make a difference between President Obama (the function) and M. Obama (the person) whether he is referred to as one or another? French usage does, though most people are incapable of correct usage, press tries to.