Results 1 to 30 of 210

Thread: Iran, Epic Troll

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Nobody expects the Senior Member Lemur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin Death Trip
    Posts
    15,754

    Default Re: Iran, Epic Troll

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir View Post
    In all seriousness, good article, but it went all NY Times about here: Having falsely accused Saddam Hussein of reconstituting his nuclear program in Iraq, Mr. Bush had little credibility in publicly discussing another nation’s nuclear ambitions.
    Yeah, I see what you mean; the NYT is describing a political reality from the time (a lot of political capital was destroyed when Iraq turned out to not possess WMDs), but they could have phrased it a little more ... politely?

    I am curious about the correct way to refer to sitting and former Presidents. I was under the impression that you called them "President X," as in, "President Bush" or "President Obama." And yet a lot of articles just go with "Mr." I should probably look up the rules in a style guide, but I am too lazy.

    -edit-

    Okay, I looked. The Chicago Manual of Style is subscriber-locked, which is irritating. So is the AP Manual of Style. What the fudge? Don't these nimrods want us to have correct usage? Clearly time for someone to set up a Wiki Manual of Style kinda thing.

    The best reference on usage with presidents I could find was this article, which sorta clears things up.

    The reason The Times calls the president Mr. on second reference is not a matter of politics or disrespect but of style. Although the newspaper’s Manual of Style and Usage says the president of the United States can be called president or Mr. once he has been introduced in a news article, in practice it is virtually always Mr. [...]

    We always referred to all presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike, by their last names only after the first reference. That practice is common among the printed news media and says more about the flow of language, saving space – and perhaps a certain (small-d) democratic impulse – than it does about disrespect. [...]

    I went to the White House to see what folks there think about how the president is referred to in The Times.

    Are they upset at the title “Mr. Bush?”

    “No, not at all,” said Tony Fratto, the deputy press secretary. “There are lots of things we find disrespectful to the president, usually on the editorial page or in a news analysis, but we take no offense at his titled reference in news articles,” Fratto said.

    “Remember,” he said, “We have citizen presidents. Mr. is a perfectly fine title.”

    Last edited by Lemur; 06-01-2012 at 18:01.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO