Osama Bin Laden Dead: New York Times Drops 'Mr.' From Bin Laden's Name

Note: this story has been updated to include the New York Times' response.

The New York Times' coverage of Osama Bin Laden's death raised eyebrows on Monday due to the fact that the paper did not refer to him as "Mr." But, in a memo, the paper said that the omission is not the precedent-shattering move it appears to be.

Romenesko reported on a memo sent to staffers by associate managing editor Tom Jolly. "At Jill and Bill's request, we dropped the honorific for Bin Laden," the memo said in part, referring to Jill Abramson, the paper's managing editor, and Bill Keller, its executive editor. And, indeed, Bin Laden is referred to as simply "Bin Laden" in the Times' coverage.

It is a common tradition of the Times that everyone--from the worst criminals to the most revered heroes--is referred to with some kind of honorific (whether "Mr." or "Ms." or "Dr." or many others) in its hard news pages. The parameters of the rule (it used to not be bestowed on criminals, for instance) have shifted somewhat, but when Bin Laden was not referred to as "Mr.," many in the media made note of the fact.

However, in another memo—this time from Phil Corbett, the keeper of the Times' stylebook flame—the paper said that it drops the honorific for the dead all of the time, and not, as some had speculated, when the subject is especially distasteful:

We pretty typically omit courtesy titles for "historic" figures who are dead -- i.e., we don't say Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Hitler, Mr. Einstein. Even more recent figures like Kennedy or Reagan are frequently used without a courtesy title and treated as historic rather than news figures. There's no hard-and-fast rule for when we do it. In this case, with a big package in the works, the decision was made to go ahead and make the change right away. Part of the consideration may have been the overall tone of the coverage -- nor was anyone likely to make the argument that we were being "disrespectful" to Bin Laden.

This would seem to sew the matter up, but it still leaves the question of why, exactly, the rule is practiced so inconsistently, especially when public figures as varied as Elizabeth Taylor, Saddam Hussein, Ronald Reagan and Michael Jackson were all given honorifics in the coverage of their death.

Comments

[akrazyrunner]

01:21 PM on 05/04/2011

This is the high standard that the New York Times is held to,
I wish other media outlets actually had a standard

[B from B]

09:04 AM on 05/03/2011

Just imagine if the honorific "Mr." would be used for Hit1 er. Do you think people would have a probem with its use. There's a reason why it's called an 'honorific.'

[cubreporter]

06:03 AM on 05/03/2011

I was once an "old school/dead tree" reporter. This brings back memories. Younger readers probably do not remember the time more than 30 years ago when all newspapers used the courtsey titles Mr., Mrs., or Miss. before each source's name. This style guidline used to make the feminists of the '70s screech, so many newspapers dropped it. Besides the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal is probably the only other important newspaper in the U.S. that still uses honorifics.

The Times made the correct call this time. Bin Laden does not deserve the honor, and I can think of a few other choice words I could use to describe him.

[Damien Lavizzo]

05:46 AM on 05/03/2011

They didn't refer to Obama as President or even Pres. but no one seems to be making a stink over that.

[European1919]

05:30 AM on 05/03/2011

"Manners Maketh Man" ... and if the NYT does not even have the manners to accord and "enemy" the honorific "Mr." then it is a poor rag indeed.

[Cleo Creech]

05:08 AM on 05/03/2011

Actually the tradition is to drop the "Mr." for anyone that's a criminal. The thinking being that they no longer are deserving of even that title and aren't citizens or productive members of society. I think in practice most papers would traditionally drop the "Mr." once someone was convicted of a felony.

That's not just a NYT's thing and it certainly applies to many more people than just Osama, he's an extreme case though.

[Holstein]

05:07 AM on 05/03/2011

HuffPo: If you're going to create original content then make the calls and get the facts *before* you publish.

[Kiwis4Obama]

03:07 AM on 05/03/2011

More childishness from HuffPo about New York Times and Mr Keller - too crass!

[shehariah]

02:47 AM on 05/03/2011

Umm...do we call Stalin, Mussolini, Ceausescu, or Hitler "Mr."? Good on the NYT for NOT calling Bin Laden MR. It would have been a waste of ink.

[SliperyPete]

02:35 AM on 05/03/2011

This article is so stupid. Honestly, could ANYONE be upset there's no Mr. with him? Let's move along, folks.

[pdxist]

02:17 AM on 05/03/2011

Online, NYT had a photo gallery on the front page, and each caption read "Mr. Bin Laden." I knew it was their rule for everybody, but it did seem ridiculous to use it over and over: Mr. Bin Laden in 2003, Mr. Bin Laden in Afghanistan, Mr. Bin Laden in a house, Mr. Bin Laden with a mouse...

[Kansiov]

02:03 AM on 05/03/2011

lolwut?

[lendmeanear]

01:15 AM on 05/03/2011

How about we meet in the middle and call him Mr. Fish food?

[CrimeaRiver]

12:17 AM on 05/03/2011

I don't get this story.

I haven't read all of the comments yet, but, in fact, the NYT DID use their standard honorific by referring to bin Laden as "Mr." in their main story online last night, which I read just minutes after I saw Pres. Obama's speech live, because I said to myself while reading it, 'Geez, that's actually unseemly to maintain such a pretentious rule in this particular case. Don't they ever drop it?'

For them NOT to cop to re-editing the story to drop the "Mr." now is weird. It's an editing affectation peculiar to the NYT that, in many cases I can think of, seems vulgar and insensitive by its commission. This is such a simple way to avoid editorializing but it's a precious NYT hallmark that they can't seem to surrender.

[Smithn]

10:40 PM on 05/02/2011

Well, all-rightie, then.