Staff Reports
The media got called out this week when a simple screenshot comparison went viral. Byron York and other conservative commentators pointed out that The New York Times recently labeled Senate nominee Abdul El‑Sayed as “Dr. Abdul El‑Sayed” while the paper has often referred to conservative physicians like Ben Carson and Senator Rand Paul without the “Dr.” honorific. The result was an old gripe — media inconsistency — wrapped in fresh outrage. And yes, it matters more than the paper would like to admit.
What sparked the controversy: the Byron York comparison
The immediate flashpoint was a social‑media post showing the Times using “Dr. Abdul El‑Sayed” in recent coverage and program notes, contrasted with archived Times pages from the campaign era that called Ben Carson “Mr. Carson.” Conservatives amplified the comparison and dug up other examples, including when the paper sometimes calls Jill Biden “Dr.” but has omitted “Dr.” for Republican medical professionals. The New York Times does sometimes use the honorific for people with earned doctorates, but critics say the practice is applied selectively — and the screenshots this week made that selective treatment hard to ignore.
Why the “Dr.” label matters in political coverage
Honorifics are not just grammar. To most readers, “Dr.” signals medical training and clinical authority. Abdul El‑Sayed does hold an M.D. and a doctorate in public health, but reporting shows he did not complete a residency that led to long clinical practice and he is not a licensed, practicing physician in the states critics checked. That nuance matters. When the paper gives a candidate the “Dr.” label without clear context, it boosts perceived authority. Meanwhile, failing to call a longtime surgeon like Ben Carson “Dr.” in political stories looks like deliberate trimming of credibility for conservatives.
Selective respect or convenient style? The NYT can’t have it both ways
The New York Times will point to house style and context. The Associated Press and other outlets have different practices. Fine. But style rules are supposed to be applied consistently, not deployed like a political power tool. Call it media bias, call it sloppy copy, call it the paper doing what it always does: tilt subtly to help Democrats. Whatever you call it, the effect is the same — one candidate gets the shorthand authority of an honorific, another loses it, and readers are nudged in a direction the paper prefers.
What readers should demand and how the Times should respond
Journalists who want public trust should treat honorifics like facts to be reported carefully, not like props to dress up favored politicians. The Times should explain its current guidance and show the examples critics cited — and if its house style allows “Dr.” for earned doctorates, then be honest and consistent about that across the board. Until then, readers should view headline flourishes skeptically and remember: if a paper has a stylebook that feels like a campaign memo, maybe it is. Call it a demand for basic fairness — and a reminder that the public deserves straight reporting, not polite flattery for the politically preferred.
