I am willing to be shown that I am mistaken in my perception, or even that my perception is correct, but my conclusions are wrong. Here’s the premise:
It seems to me that the media, generally, refers to the (the honorable?) Senators Clinton and Obama by their first names far more frequently than white male senators, members of congress, and other political figures. And it’s not a Dem/Rep thing. It’s a white males vs. not-white-males thing. And I think it’s largely unconconcious. But the effect is real: it is demeaning and disrespectful, and it subliminally delivers the message that Sen. Clinton & Obama aren’t quite as important, good, serious, etc. (how do you write the abbreviated plural? Sens.?)
Now, one possible reason that occurred to me about why the media would do it more with Clinton and Obama than, say, McCain or Edwards is…well, McCain and Edwards are both named John, along with millions of other Americans and certainly dozens of other political figures. But even so…my perception is that “Rudi” is not used to refer to the mayor nearly as often as Giuliani is. And I also think it has a lot to do with the two of them running for President, because Sen. Pelosi is referred to as Pelosi. If she ran for President, I think we’d be seeing a lot more “Nancy” in the headlines.
So… is the perception correct? (Hard to google… if you look up the names, apart from headlines you have to comb each story to check) and if so, what is the reason?
Referring to politicians by first name in media = disrespect.?
George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George George
I seem to recall in 2000 Sam Donaldson called him “Junior” on the air during post-election coverage. I was quite shocked and disappointed at the blatant disrespect he was showing.
It wasn’t so much a whoosh as an attempt at humor.
But note how often he is called “W”, since that helps differentiate him from his father.
I think the OP needs to better back up the thesis being offered. Aside from “Hillary”, I don’t see it, and I think there is a good reason for that exception.
Actually, this is something I’ve noticed in literature, too - while male characters are often referred to by their surname, female characters almost never are. It’s traditional. A tradition stemming from sexism, but a tradition nontheless.
As for Obama… I wouldn’t be surprised if his own people were encouraging the use of the much cooler “Barack.” Obama, after all, is one B away from some nasty associations.
One theory could be that referring to a political leader familiarly is a way for a media figure to display some “insider” credential; referring to secretary of state as “Condi” instead of “Secretary Rice” gives the illusion that the journalist/pundit has a closer relationship or more familiarity with the person/subject.
But generally, I think the use of firstnames and nicknames is a way to minimize a politician. Former Treasury secretary Paul O’Neill thought that the current president’s habit of assigning people nicknames was just a form of bullying.
I think repeatedly calling Senator Clinton “Hillary” started out the same way, but it’s now so ubiquitously accepted that the Senator herself emphasizes it in her campaign signs/literature.
The style guide for any given publication should govern what’s done and the editor should enforce it consistently for that publication.
If you’re talking about spoken media, I think there is a very broad range but I don’t think the chip on your shoulder should grow very large without an actual study. Certainly part of the problem is the preference of the politician or the preference of their image advisor. It’s not unusual for a politician to prefer a first-name basis with their peeps–the American public.
Hillary is the only one that I’ve seen this apply to, and that seems to be the way she wants it. I’ve always had the impression that she was more comfortable being called “Rodham” than “Clinton” anyway, and just using the first name avoids all of that.
Nobody ever refers to Barak that I know of. But if he gets nominated, watch for emphasis on his middle name: Barak HUSSEIN Obama will be in every Republican ad.
I do think it is generally disrespectful to refer to leaders by their first name, and I think that’s why Bush so often does it to other heads of state.
I have never read, in the print media, Barack Obama referred to as “Barack.” I have never heard a media type on TV or radio call him “Barack.” Never.
The first name phenomenon seems to me to be resricted mostly to Hillary Clinton, so it’s probably specific to her, and as John points out, there’s another very famous Clinton around.
