WSJ defends use of Mr/Ms in sports coverage

Wouldn't they just be referred to as

 

I worked at one place where the owner/publisher/editor insisted on Mr/Ms/Coach, etc., even in sports copy.
I thought it was pretentious. I still do.
In news copy, it especially seems stupid when referring to mass murderers or something like that.

 

It is ridiculous on its face to see 'Mr. Ochocinco' in print. Which I have seen in that publication.

 

What the hell kind of waste of time is this move?

 

This is CEO stuffy language.....hell with 'em.

 

A (female) colleague told me about working at a paper in the 1980s where they demanded titles. She said when she covered women's sports, she would have to ask each player if they were married so as to avoid being wrong about Miss or Mrs. That, to me, is absolutely ridiculous and a bit chauvinistic.

 

Regular readers of the source of the rebuttal should not be in the least surprised.

 

To me, use of titles says they aspire to something better. Perhaps it's overly formal, but I don't see that as a bad thing. If it means a writer or three changing their habits while writing, dem's da berries. As much as we'd all like to think otherwise, we're still the hired help.

I take issue with this part, though:

I'm not sensing desperation from the fans. The vast majority of them are rubber neckers, which I would submit precludes desperation for civility.

 

I don't see anything wrong with doing it, but I can't think of a compelling argument to do it, either.
It's sort of the old standby of not writing four words when two will do.

 

I could have understood a more legitimate explanation. Instead, they chose to be jackasses about it. They've had a few decent sports stories since expanding their coverage, but I've seen quite a few stories where their facts came in on the Pluto Express. This explanation on honorifics is in line with their simplistic understanding of the sports world.

 

The problem with all their references in their story (i.e. Mr. Met, Mr. Peanut, et al) is that they don't have first names, or at least I don't know of them. Mr. Peanut is his name. So wouldn't he be Mr. Mr. Peanut or wouldn't it be Mr. Mr. T in the WSJ?

I mean, the honorific replaces the first name, does it not? And what do you do when you don't know the first name, or the person has no first name that we know of?

 

I was once quoted in a NYT article, not in sports, and was asked whether I was a Miss, Mrs. or Ms. Considering I NEVER use those in any other aspect of my life, it was like asking why I hadn't brought my white gloves to lunch. And considering the story had nothing to do with whether or not I was married, a feminist or a virgin, it was a little too all up in my business.

But I bet it won't come up much since I don't see the WSJ sports section covering a lot of women. Note those examples in the ed. save Ms. Williams were male.

There was no reference to a syrup called Butterworth. Or a flavor enhancer called Dash. Just sayin.