Re: The dumbing down of the news

["A. Joseph Ross" <lawyer@world.std.com>]

On 10 Feb 99,  Bill O'Neill wrote:

> There are very few news talkers who get Cardinal Law's description
> correct, either.  "Bernard Cardinal Law" is how he'd like it (and
> tradition seems to have it), and most say "Cardinal Bernard Law".  

Radio newscasters always used to get that one right, too.  I remember 
when Archbishop Cushing became a Cardinal, and I was surprised to 
hear "Richard Cardinal Cushing" on the radio news.  But I immediately 
assumed that was correct.  Even local news was careful to get things 
like that correct back then.  

> Also, you know how deeper in a story, it's acceptable to refer to your
> subject by last name only?  Are there incidences where that is
> inappropriate?  

Trouble with that rule applied to royalty and to the Pope is that they 
don't properly =have= last names.  Or at least not in the sense that 
other people have.  "Hussein" was his first name.  And I've never heard 
anyone refer to Queen Elizabeth II as "Windsor" deeper in a story.  
That's a dynastic name, not a surname.  When she signs papers, she 
signs "Elizabeth R."  (The R stands for "Regina," latin for Queen.)

Back when the Queen came to the U.S. in 1976 for the bicentennial, 
there was a newspaper cartoon of an advisor telling President Ford 
(who was known for his verbal gafs), "Just because she calls you 'Mr. 
President' doesn't mean you call her 'Mrs. Queen.'"  Now radio news is 
just that stupid.  


==================================================================
 A.Joseph Ross, J.D.                                 617.367.0468
 15 Court Square                             lawyer@world.std.com
 Boston, MA 02108-2503              http://world.std.com/~lawyer/
==================================================================

------------------------------