The New York Times appears to be on a first-name basis with every last person under the age of 18.
From recently-underage junior socialite designer Jessie Della Femina to 17-year-old ex-con Charles Wyatt, everyone the Times reports on who has not yet reached majority is referred to by his or her first name. This cannot be in order to protect the anonymity of minors--we are informed when meeting Jessie and Charles that they are in fact Jessie Della Femina and Charles Wyatt. So why exactly is this done? Why not, for anyone old enough to be reported about, just use the standard Ms. or Mr.? Any story in which first names are used takes on a certain human-interest or cutesy quality that it would not otherwise have had. The dry impartiality of a news article is replaced with an "oh how sad" or "oh how charming" tone, depending on the story. We feel, when reading about Jessie or Charles, that we are reading fiction.
I have no idea if referring to minors by their first names is an official policy at the Times, or of journalists in general for that matter, and would be curious to know.
This is a fascinating observation, particularly that there is "fictional" quality in the "sad" or "charming" (i.e., editorializing) cast to the reporting. But do you think the courtesy title of Mr. or Ms. should be extended to individuals of any age? What would you think of, say, "The formerly conjoined twins , though suffering from separation anxiety, are doing well. Mr. X Smith remains in intensive care; Mr. Y Smith has has been moved to a regular crib"?
ReplyDelete