How should journalists address a POTUS?

Clearly they were talking about a different Obama because they did not refer to the President. I take it the NYTimes is a tabloid with naked women on page 2 ? Because that is the level I would expect such disrespect from...

As a form of address, I would go with Mr. President or President Obama. Speaking of him, I am comfortable with just 'Obama'. I notice your article used both when speaking of him. Since they didn't directly address him, I think they are fine both ways.

The relationship between the Individual and government is one of adversity.
We, the citizens, brought government into existence by a contract among ourselves.
We, the citizens, are the parents of our baby: government.
It shoud look UP to the Individual citizen
and the citizen shoud look DOWN upon his hireling, government.
We citizens are like owners of real estate who hire a property
manager and a security guard to whom we provide equipment.
We created this thing so that IT will serve US, not so that WE will serve IT.

(Admittedly, in a military situation, within which it will co-ordinate,
that can be troublesome. Here, I address a domestic situation.)

We NEED to bear in mind that the relationship between the domestic jurisdiction of government
and our own personal freedom is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL,
and we must hold that damned government in check, or their will be hell to pay.
Accordingly, we need to keep our priorities straight about WHO is over WHOM.

I disfavor this fawning attitude that u suggest, Hawkeye for those reasons.
Let 's get into the mindset of the citizens (us) looking down on government, not up and remember who is boss and owner.

Hitler said: "authority from the top down,
obedience from the bottom up"; David says: REVERSE THAT, as well as is possible.

Do THE OPPOSITE of Hitler 's preference.
To the extent that it is not possible,
we can 't do it, but let 's not pull the rope too far in the rong direction, Hawkeye.





David

In the body of the editorial they refer to him as President Obama and not as Mr. Obama. They are clearly displaying appropriate respect for his office.

It is puzzling why the headline uses "Mr". Perhaps it was a space consideration. Had the headline simply read, "Obama and No Child Left Behind", that might have been a better choice.

Can't see getting worked up about that headline.

Ah! It was in the headline. No wonder I didn't see what Hawkeye was talking about. I do agree with you that 'Obama' is as good as, and maybe better than Mr. Obama in referring to him. Obama is casual, while the Mr. seems to deliberately deny him the title.

I let my frame of mind be set up by the thread title, which speaks of addressing the president. I think my earlier post said I favored Mr. President or President Obama for direct address. I think Mr. Obama would be disrespectful in that respect. I should mention that if you had been around longer, you would probably have picked up on the idea that I don't much care for the man. That is not the issue.

It was an issue of column space and headline font size so they could include the subject of the article.

it was one example among many, the question is General, is this disrespectful and thus wrong.

That is very presumptuous to ASSUME that it is rong to be disrespectful toward our low life employee.

Even with Presidents that I can not stand I detest those who attempt to make themselves seem sophisticated and "in the know" by using "POTUS."

when addressing any politician or head of state i prefer the to respect them and their office by greeting them with "**** You, Fuckstick"

Not me, just another fan of "West Wing" here...

i agree with you

"Hey, shithead," works for me.

Yes; I think its an awkward usage.





David

Are you referring to the current so called president or US presidents in general?

as I have said it is the position not the man who is being respected/disrespected by address.....I mean all.

I believe the position is being disrespected by the current man-child in chief, so call him what you like.