If the President of the United States appeared on a Connecticut interview show would he be addressed as “Barack”? We think not. So we wonder why some of our state’s broadcasters think it’s appropriate to call various elected officials by their first names.
We’re not just being formal (though we are that); when an interviewer calls Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz “Susan” because he/she has known her a long time, but calls someone newer to the political scene by their title, it sets up the appearance of favoritism.
Thanks for bringing this up. First names belong off-camera (if anywhere). When the line between the watchdogs and the watched is blurred by chumminess, journalistic objectivity flies out the window. Such cult-of-celebrity pandering diminishes the authority of both reporter and elected official.
They’re just maintaining the long-established wall between journalism and local TV news.
To Jim, the last poster..
VERY nice…subtle..true, and funny..LOL!
An interesting issue.
1. I have come to believe that using titles provides elected officials with a level of deference they may not deserve and gives their opinions added weight they may not merit. They work for us. We gave them the title by voting for them.
2. If the use of the title is only for when the camera is on – then it is deceiving to the audience. The chumminess is there we just don’t see it. Transparency requires that they be addressed as they would be off camera.
So if you call her Susan off air you should call her Susan on air. If you call her Madam Secretary off air – well that’s a whole different story.
Now, don’t I have some work to do?
With all respect, I disagree, Dean.
Call me old-fashioned..I’m not old (late 30s)..
but I think it’s a simple matter of respect and civility..two values that are quickly eroding in our culture today. A simple “Mr.” or “Ms.” with either the last name or the title is surely not too much “deference.” It is merely appropriate, in my view, and nothing remotely to do with “transparency.”
I have NEVER been a fan of calling elected officials by their first names.
And I agree it is simply a matter of respect and civility. Even if you have absolutely no respect for the office holder you must continue to have respect for the office he or she holds.
But I’m REALLY old…I’m in my 50’s!!
[…] political analyst Duby McDowell (a Shad favorite) makes an excellent point on her fine website The Laurel, about how some broadcasters inappropriately address the officials they are interviewing. The […]
[…] Duby: http://thelaurelct.com/2010/08/16/richard-and-nancy-and-susan-and-linda-and/ […]
Some might think addressing Connecticut men’s basketball coach Jim Calhoun as ‘Jim’ is disrespectful. If ‘Coach’ is the required form of address for a university staff member I would suggest that the title of an elected official is an essential form of address for the broadcast media in all cases. A broadcast interviewer, or member of the public for that matter, shows disrespect for the office with a casual form of address, The interviewer may suspend address by title if invited by the office holder.