Why do the US and British press have two different styles of address? On my CNN app, for example, the headline is an article about Mike Pence having been asked to consider invoking the 25th amendment after 1/6. Throughout the article he’s referred to as Pence, not Mr. Pence. Even the POTUS is always Biden, Obama, Bush, etc. On my BBC app, there’s an article about Germany potentially having to ration gas. The German economic minister is referred to as Robert Habeck the first time, and Mr. Habeck after that. I notice the same usage for everyone, not just top government officials and other VIPs. Where did this stylistic difference come from, and how far back does it go?
It’s not a U.S./British difference. It’s a choice made by individual publications. For example, the New York Times would always say Mr. Pence.
Half the answer may be the AP style guide. From a cheat sheet, under names:
●Use a person’s first and last name the first time he or she is mentioned. On second reference, use only last name with no title.
●Do not use courtesy titles such as Mr., Mrs., Miss or Ms. unless they are part of a direct quotation or are needed to differentiate between people who have the same last name.
Example:
Water Quality Control Division Director Steve Gunderson led the panel. Gunderson said clean water is very important.
Presumably there is a UK-equivalent to that, or then again maybe there isn’t. Like I said, half the answer. If I had to hazard a guess, seeing as different titles (from chivalric orders, peerages, etc) are still a thing in the UK, that might explain some of the difference, even absent an equivalent to the AP style guide. God forbid you refer to Lord Squat as Mister Squat, like some commoner. And Just plain old Squat would be right out. Like an accusation of villainy (or is it villeinage?).
Isn’t a better question, “Why would the UK and the US have similar styles?” I can’t think of any reason why that would be true.
As noted above, the US alone has multiple styles for multiple publications. Style isn’t some sort of grammar rule. It’s absolutely arbitrary. Anybody can declare a style and mandate that the publications they own use it. Pittsburgh changed its name to Pittsburg for a while and then went back to Pittsburgh, but some of the Pittsburgh newspapers continued to drop the “h”. The Chicago Tribune spent 40 years trying to promote simplified spelling before finally giving up in 1930. The Times itself has updated many of its old practices to align more with the, um, times. I think it was rap names that kerflummoxed them.
The BBC is as extremely conservative as the New York Times. Continuing to use an older style form is hardly surprising. Does the rest of the UK press follow their lead? No. A few seconds of Googling UK news sites will show that.
Basic politeness on the part of the UK media.
Exactly. The premise of the OP is wrong.
I remember an article in the NYT about pro wrestling, in which they mentioned a wrestler “who insisted that his legal name was Manfred the Maniac”. Henceforth, the article referred to the guy as “Mr. Maniac”.
The Associated Press represents “basic politeness” from the point of view of the Associated Press. As Exapno said, it’s an arbitrary style choice.
The Wall Street Journal uses titles, as well.
That would be the same U.K. media that rips politicians and other news figures to shreds in routinely nasty reporting.
The continued use of Mr./Ms. in news media follows longstanding stylistic tradition (the Wall St. Journal does it too), though that tradition is weakening or becoming nonexistent in the world of sports, based on what I’m seeing in U.K. media and the N.Y. Times.*
*it’s always sounded silly to read (for example) about the doings of Mr. Stanton of the Yankees.
It doesn’t include just the usual Mr./Ms. forms of address (incidentally, typically spelt without the period in the UK), it also includes styles of nobility: Politicians who are peers (that is not so rare because of the practice of granting life peerages to politicians) are usually styled as such in the British media. For instance, Peter Mandelson is usually referred to as Lord Mandelson.
There was a legend that The New York Times referred to Meat Loaf as Mr Loaf. However, it’s not true, although the headline on a movie about him read “Is He Called Just Plain Meat Or Should It Be Mr. Loaf?”
This one is not a legend. Wasn’t hard to find, either.
ABOUT NEW YORK; OF WRESTLERS, POLITICIANS AND SHOWMANSHIP - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
A wrestler who looked in for a few minutes and who insisted his legal name was Manfred the Maniac, said he would not testify because he might become angered by the line of questioning and decide to body-slam some senators and put Senator Bernstein in a hold called the double-arm bar. ‘‘Maybe a figure-four leg lock too,’’ said Mr. Maniac.
I like the New York Times for many reasons. The title+name style is one of them, though a minor one.
Question: what title do the Times and BBC use for non-binary people, Mx?
I don’t know about the BBC but, yes, The New York Times uses Mx. Here (gift link), for example, is a recent example. Or, if you don’t want to follow the link, here is the beginning to that article.
In late May, the chef Silver Cousler flew to Miami from Asheville, N.C., to have a “last hurrah” party ahead of getting married and a new restaurant opening. While booking the flight, Mx. Cousler, who identifies as nonbinary and uses the pronoun “they,” felt like they had “a split-personality disorder” when the Delta Air Lines website required them to choose either “male” or “female.”
Cool. Thanks much!
Of course, it’s worth noting that the name of a peerage is not necessarily the peer’s own name. For instance, the 19th century physicist best-known as “Lord Kelvin” was named “William Thomson”. It would be a faux pas for a British writer to refer to him as “Mr Thomson” or “Lord Thomson” or “Thomson”.
Indeed, one thing is the personal name of the peer and another is the title of the peerage. In the case of life peerages, they are usually the same since the title is normally constructed on the basis of the awardee’s name plus a territorial designation, which follows the title separated from it by a comma, but that designation does not form part of the title by which the peer is usually referred to.
Well calling him “Mr Maniac” is more correct than “Manfred”, because his name is “Morgus the Maniac”.
Is it too obscure to think that the “Manfred The Maniac” mentioned in in Marvel Superheroes #392, as a photographer, a bit part, from 1983… might be the source of the confusion in the name ?