A conversation going on in copy editing circles centers on the appropriateness of using “Dr.” before names.
John McIntyre of the Baltimore Sun posits: “But since people do earn doctorates, and like to use doctor with their names, and circulate among people who also like the sound of titles, the reasonable course is to follow the practice that The Times recommends: Use the title when the person has an earned degree and the holding of that degree is relevant to the context of the article.â€
Bill Walsh of the Washington Post differs, saying “If you can’t fix a broken leg, I’m not calling you ‘doctor.’ â€
I agree with these two on many points, but not this one. While context can often make clear what sort of doctor a person is, that’s not always the case. For example, take this sentence:
Dr. Reed Richards of the Kirby School of Medicine said the Modok virus could infect thousands of people and llamas.
The question becomes: Is Richards a medical doctor or a Ph.D.? An obvious assumption, since it refers to a medical school, is that Richards is physician. But what if the title is because he holds a doctorate in virology or biology? There’s no way a reader would know.
That’s where our style comes in.
The Eagle’s solution is to skip the title and be specific. Therefore, it’s family physician James Hesse, colorectal surgeon Noel Sanchez or Russian-language professor Lisa McLendon. This style imparts more information than the honorific Dr. does.
There, now that you know, don’t you feel better?