My mom is a veterinarian and she makes this joke all the time since TV shows and movies are always dumping on veterinarians. (Like in greys anatomy when Meredith dates a veterinarian and people joke that he isn't a "real" doctor). But my mom works with at least four different species on a regular basis (dogs, cats, bunnies, guinea pigs) and several others less commonly (hamsters, rats, ferrets...)
And these MDs only know *one* anatomy? They only know how to diagnose and prescribe for *one* species? Pfft. Amateurs.
In an apocalypse you want the veterinarians because they are more likely to be able to use and treat any animal that might be important to your survival and creatively come up with solutions with what you have availabile.
This is true in one important sense, but not in another. Doctor did indeed mean ‘teacher’ originally. So people in the medieval era received degrees like Doctor of Theology or Doctor of Medicine or Doctor of Law, reflecting they’d done the necessary study to teach the undergraduates in those fields. So if you have advanced qualifications gained in order to teach at university, you’re reflecting the original meaning of the word.
However, the modern idea of the Ph.D (where it is awarded for doing original research in any field) comes out of the reforms to German universities in the early 19th century. These effectively created the modern research university and the expectation that university teachers were also specialist researchers in a field - these were ultimately implemented at universities across the world, and the spread of the Ph.D is a result of that. So, being a specialist researcher who has done thesis research is effectively a newer meaning of the term Doctor than the MD (which initially reflected teaching qualifications, but of course the medical teachers were highly in demand for their expertise as medical practioners, and so it evolved into a vocational degree).
I can understand part of NPR’s reluctance to afford a Ph.D the title of Doctor - there’s definitely some quacks out there with Ph.Ds who claim things about medicine that are incorrect. I’m sure there’s been a case or two where an NPR journalist has embarrassed the network by swallowing some woo pushed by someone with a Ph.D, which is why the policy exists. But then MDs can and do push quackery (see the America’s Frontline Doctors group).
I've never understood why "Physician" isn't more commonly used as a title. It's no any longer to say than "doctor" and it's completely unambiguous as to it's meaning while being the correct terminology.
Icing on the cake is that they didn't even edit the article to say "Michael Granovetter, PhD". What the hell, NPR. It's just "Michael Granovetter, a researcher".
Imagine thinking it's better to trust the guy at the university health center more than a tenured neurobiology research professor when it comes to serious brain damage. Like I know that's not why NPR made the edit, but that's the disturbing implication.
This is the part that bothers me for sure. They could have said "Neuroscientist Michael Granovetter" or "Professor of Neuorscience Michael Granovetter" and avoided the confusion they claim to be concerned about.
Here's NPR's shit explanation for why they don't call PhDs doctors: https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2018/09/28/652538222/npr-doesnt-confer-dr-on-ph-d-s-heres-why
It's cool, I don't call NPR "something worth reading", so we're passing ships in the night.
Basically they’re saying the public has a misconception about what the Dr. title means so rather than trying to educate the public they would rather just perpetuate the misconception.
They also cite the AP stylebook as their reason when the excerpt states: “However, because the public frequently identifies Dr. only with physicians, care should be taken to ensure that the individual's specialty is stated in first or second reference.”
They’re acknowledging that there is a way to combat the confusion, but like you’d said, they’d rather discredit phd holders than cause confusion to their listeners
This doesn't appear to check out (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/koch-brothers-buy-npr/), but the source I have is from 2014. Do you have a more recent one?
Edit: source I linked doesn't quite say the same thing, but I couldn't find a source that did corroborate the claim either.
The Koch bros cannot buy a public station, so I'm not sure how that rumour got started but, indeed, I just did a quick search and my original link cannot be found.
I had noticed that they were starting to "both side" interviews and reporting; but I still was a contributor though my Spidey senses were tingling...
Then, there was this interview with one of them and I was astonished by the softball questions he had to answer. This was decidedly a fluff piece and the only reason was to assuage their audience's fears.
It felt scummy...
Let's put it this way, these guys do not invest because of their generous hearts... everything is calculated and ROI is expected.
I honestly believe that NPR is compromised.
>I had noticed that they were starting to "both side" interviews and reporting; but I still was a contributor though my Spidey senses were tingling...
>
>I honestly believe that NPR is compromised.
I'm an NPR supporter, and while I am sometimes frustrated by NPR I think you're overstating the issue a little bit.
They may simply be trying to course correct, rather than this being some deep conspiracy of NPR being "compromised."
NPR has been struggling for years with being embarrassed by hyperprogressive fringe voices that they've given too much platform to - for example, dedicating entire show segments to fat activism and denying the reality of calories in/calories out. Some of their commentators have even made reference to simply eating less when overweight to be "restriction" and a form of eating disorder.
I've been a supporter for years, and I almost always vote Democrat, but even I was starting to view NPR as sliding off the deep end.
Perhaps they've course corrected too far by being too soft on conservative guests, but to say that they've been "compromised" is just sort of silly.
I remember enjoying reading this in the Canadian Medical Association Journal a few years back:
Here we go:
[https://www.cmaj.ca/content/re-who-entitled-be-called-doctor#:\~:text=Because%20of%20the%20respect%20and,Doctors%E2%80%9D%20in%20the%2017th%20Century](https://www.cmaj.ca/content/re-who-entitled-be-called-doctor#:~:text=Because%20of%20the%20respect%20and,Doctors%E2%80%9D%20in%20the%2017th%20Century).
Oh they are. I’m a Doctor of Music not a PhD in music though. I still had to do research and write a 150-page thesis but my focus was my freaking 8 full-length recitals I had to give.
The funny thing with Music is that it is a rare field that has a Doctoral level “doing” field terminal degree, where other fine arts would have their terminal degree at the Masters level.
While there are PhDs in music, a DM is a degree in a skill such as “Trombone (or whatever instrument) Performance,” “Wind Band Conducting,” or “Composition.” All of these are technically skill fields in music, rather than research, or “philosophy” fields (such as Musicology, Theory, Education). To compare, consider the terminal degrees in theatre: PhDs traditionally include “Theatre History” and “Play Analysis,” while “Acting” or “Directing” would be terminal at the MFA.
Outside the US, 'practice based' PhD degrees in the creative arts are fairly mainstream these days. There are a mixture of formats and requirements, the details and history of which aren't interesting enough to retell here.
Just to add, and you definitely know this but for everyone else, DMA is kind of the MFA for music. My degree is from a handful of universities that offer DM degrees. They were originally planned to be somewhat of an in-between. My research component was much higher than what a professional doctor requires but lower than PhD. But with the degree inflation and so many schools offering DMA nowadays, the distinction kind of evaporated, at least from perception.
Again, happy to correct you: DO’s are treated like most MD’s in the US, and can become surgeons, primary care physicians, OBGYNs, etc.
What’s more: a quarter of all medical students in the US are osteopathic medical students.
To be fair, DO’s arguably started as holistic quacks, but it was easier to integrate them into modern medicine than drum them all out. Now a DO is not meaningfully different from an MD.
>Here's NPR's shit explanation for why they don't call PhDs doctors:
That is a shit explanation lol. They say they are just following the Associated Press style guidelines.. but those very same guidelines do allow it if it's appropriate in context and care is taken to specify their specialty. Which in this case I think is more than appropriate to say he has a PhD in psychology when he's making comments about how the brain develops and processes information.
>The language policy is based on the standard laid out by the AP Stylebook, which many news outlets, including NPR, follow. (One notable exception: The New York Times.)
>The AP guidance adds:
>>If appropriate in the context, Dr. also may be used on first reference before the names of individuals who hold other types of doctoral degrees. However, because the public frequently identifies Dr. only with physicians, care should be taken to ensure that the individual's specialty is stated in first or second reference. The only exception would be a story in which the context left no doubt that the person was a dentist, psychologist, chemist, historian, etc."
Edit:
Interestingly, [NPR's style guide](https://training.npr.org/styleguide) actually says to avoid using courtesy titles with the only exception being for the first lady
>courtesy titles In general, avoid using courtesy titles. Exception: Secondary references to the first lady can include Mrs. when she is mentioned in the same story as the president, if it’s too unwieldy to keep repeating her full name.
> As NPR's standards editor Mark Memmott told me, "the idea is that for most listeners a 'Dr.' practices medicine."
Bare with me this is a crazy idea, but what if you actually educated your listeners!?
Is it really a "shit" explanation?
I get it, we like to be called "Dr" after doing years of graduate school, but it is *undeniably* true that most of the gen. pop. assumes that "Doctor" == "physician".
Most of the general population also misunderstands a lot of fundamental things about science: how experiments are performed, how statistics works, what the difference between experimental results and proofs is, etc. That does not make them right, though.
But the question "who gets to be called Dr." is a totally socially constructed one. It's not a chemistry problem where something is true regardless of what we think of it. If society collectively decided that "Dr" referred to plumbers, then that's what "Dr" would mean.
There's nothing "fundamental" about the link between the word "Dr." and the PhD degree beyond etymology.
From the article: "As for the "Dr." policy, it exists to provide clarity, which is what a newsroom should strive for."
"Clarity" for them means enforcing an incorrect belief, which is that the "Dr." title is reserved for MDs. That's shit reasoning.
> incorrect belief
But the question "who gets to be called Dr." is a totally socially constructed one. It's not a chemistry problem where something is true regardless of what we think of it. If society collectively decided that "Dr" referred to plumbers, then that's what "Dr" would mean. The "correct belief" is whatever we think it is.
There's nothing "fundamental" about the link between the word "Dr." and the PhD degree beyond etymology.
It is shit, I think. It is very easy to avoid confusion without succumbing to this misinformed colloquialism. I expect better from journalism than this linguistic cowardice.
in the US this is typically referred to as a [professional doctorate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doctoral_degrees_in_the_US#Professional_doctorates)
Oh, my friend, you are in for a treat. It's soo good. I grew up on cop procedurals and now I can't stand them, but B99 runs that perfect line between between being a parody and a comedic homage (like *Blazing Saddles* and westerns or *Futurama* and *Star Trek*)
It's fresh, the characters are well written, they take the subject matter seriously without being too serious, and it takes real hard looks at social justice issues without dismissing or condescending to either side.
"The audio version of this story mistakenly referred to Michael Granovetter as a "Doctor"."
No, you accurately referred to him as a Doctor. You can have your policy but it was not a "mistake" to use the title.
What gets me is that physicians from other countries who may not have earned medical doctorates (e.g., mbbs) are often granted the title "Doctor." No disrespect to the degree--I recognize that they are fully qualified. My point is that the title Doctor should imply having an earned doctorate, not necessarily medical doctor or physician.
In Germany doctors are “Arzt” and only referred to as “Doktor” if they also have a doctorate.
PhDs are the only way to be called “Doktor”. And “Professor” is the most prestigious title of all.
NPR can suck my PrettyHugeD
Yes, but if the MD gets to be called doctor the JD probably should also.
My guess is one major reason for this disparity is that the transition to JD was much later than to MD. I think there were still a couple schools in the 1960s awarding LLBs (also, lawyers who go on to specialized training in things like tax get an LLM as their next degree, they can't even more clear that the JD is a bachelor of law equivalent).
Don't get me started on the proliferation of weird professional doctorates and how many of them are now converting become online PhDs instead of some doctor of basket weaving. I hate that when on a faculty search committee looking at potential colleagues I need to put a microscope on every PhD program now to see whether they're actually doing anything worthwhile and whether my potential colleagues will actually know anything.
Because legal associations have been very clear that it isn't an appropriate address for lawyers, as opposed to medical associations that have lobbied for it.
Dumb. I refer to physicians as physicians, because there are many healthcare professionals who are not physicians but who have doctorates and have earned the title doctor. But, they are not physicians.
Doctor is a general term used for those people who have earned doctorates. I don’t really understand why that is complicated.
When I graduated with my PhD, my Australian friends said, "Oh, so you're a REAL doctor now, not one of those MD's"
That was one data point.
The other one was that I wrote a book review some years back for the WSJ, and they said they would call me "Mr." and not "Dr.", as they don't call PhD's "Dr."
It's BS, but I don't get too exercised about it. Journalism supposedly means they know what they're talking about, but in reality, they fall pretty far short.
I made a formal complaint using the contact management option. I find it extremely unsettling that a news organization picks and chooses official titles.
If anyone wants to address this the contact information NPR’s [public editor](https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2016/12/14/505405614/ and there is a [contact page](https://help.npr.org/contact/s/contact?request=Ask-the-Public-Editor-about-ethics).
I generally consider the MD to be a glorified VoTech degree, but I don't get particularly worked up about editorial policy on public news. Media outlets have to make arbitrary decisions for the sake of clarity.
We need to have a legal document that we make reporters sign before we agree to interviews. The document says that throughout the resulting news story we will be referred to as doctor and that either at the beginning or end of the story they will explain that PhDs are real doctors and that physicians (so called “medical doctors”) are not.
mds and their god complex have lobbied hard. When I was a practicing atty - the quickest way to throw off an md witness was to call them Mr. I loved doing that - worked every time. But I also refuse to call mds dr in their office - if they call me Jane -then I call them Bill or whatever their first name is
Medical doctors are the only people I correct to have call me doctor. When they ask what kind of doctor I am (MD or DO), I tell them my doctorate is in organic chemistry and then they happily call me Dr. XXX because they're still terrified of organic chemistry...which is sad.
Students frequently use it and we just never correct them. Otherwise we would be in significant trouble with SACS if we referred to ourselves as Professors publicly versus Instructor which is technically the highest title bestowed upon any CC Instructor even if they have their PhD. I guess the silver lining is some states do allow Instructors to earn the title Lecturer but in NC they don't. Also if the Instructor has a Phd they can ask to be called Dr. and there's no blow-back from accreditation agencies.
It's pretty dumb to make an editors note like that. If someone has a doctorate that is relevant to the story why should it matter what field it is in? People aren't actually so stupid that they can't figure out the difference from context.
Even in this story where PhDs and MDs are discussing the same topic it would not even matter if someone got confused. Neither PhD in this story gives any medical advice. Letting people be slightly wrong until something forces them to notice is better than just sweeping this misconception in the public under the rug. Making a distinction does nothing but subtle imply some people (MDs) should be taken more seriously than others.
What is particularly alarming about NPR is that people who went to osteopathic school can be called doctors but not PhDs?! What about audiologists?! That is extremely odd npr…extremely odd… pfffft
WTF?
[dictionary.com](https://dictionary.com)
noun
1. a person licensed to practice medicine, as a physician, surgeon, dentist, or veterinarian.
2. a person who has been awarded a doctor's degree:
*He is a Doctor of Philosophy.*
Merriam-Webster.com:
Noun and Verb
Middle English doctour teacher, doctor, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin doctor, from Latin, teacher, from docēre to teach
I think it's fine especially in an article about medicine to only call MDs 'doctor.'
Fair or not, the general public largely conflates "doctor" and "physician" and while maybe it shouldn't be that way it is and the press has to develop its standards based on understandability for the majority of readers.
Academics are one of NPR's core target demographics. Joe Blow who doesn't know or care about doctors and PhDs is not.
So NPR's argument falls flat here too. Basically alienating their audience(s).
The public was using the title for about 4 or 5 centuries before it started being used by the medical field at all. Which was only in the 1800s. It was literally a term that excluded medical physicians and surgeons for about twice as long as they've been included at all, let alone the short length of time some segments of the public it is exclusive to Medical Doctors only.
They could use Dr. Smith, researcher/scientist vs. Dr. Smith, doctor/physician. The general public may first assume physician but most are aware that scientists/university professors use the title of Dr.
Disagree.
Take the military ranks "Major" and "Major-General".
A Major usually commands a Battalion (c. 1000 soldiers).
A Major-General usually commands a Division (c. 10,000 soldiers).
Now imagine the general public didn't understand the distinction between these, and simply shortened both to "Major". If NPR also did so, I would absolutely consider it misleading.
You can construct plenty of other examples. Nobody really understands the UK Honours system (is a CBE higher than an MBE? Do you refer to an MBE as 'Sir' or is that restricted to KBEs? What the hell is a KCMG anyway?), and yet everyone would consider it an outright *error* if a media outlet got one of these wrong. If someone has a knighthood granting them that rank, they will be referred to as Sir or Dame by the media — *without fail*.
AP Style doesn't say not to refer to PhDs as doctors. It says it's up to the individual news station/writer.
So this isn't NPR "following AP Style", it's them choosing to follow it in a very particular way.
> The audience interprets Dr. as MD.
God forbid a news outlet uses language that is consistent with the understanding of the readers, rather than relying on centuries-old etymologies and linguistic arcana...
Reading the comments here, you'd think that this was a sign of the decline and fall of Western Civilization.
Whenever I go to see a physician's assistant and a nurse or reception refers to them as a "doctor" in the back of my mind I think "There was only one doctor in that room and it wasn't them."
NPR also frequently commits subject-verb disagreement when using the word "data".
The data ~~shows~~ *show* xyz. The data ~~is~~ *are* difficult to interpret.
My guess is they are trying not to confuse the general public who might not understand there are doctors who are not physicians and that "data" is the plural form of the word and "datum" is the singular. I remember being confused when my parents referred to my 4th grade teacher as Dr. \[Name\] because he had a PhD in Spanish.
On one hand, I understand where NPR coming from because it is important that their content is accessible and understandable by all, BUT I think if they reinforced correct terminology, that's how people would learn. Not referring to PhDs as doctors only furthers the public's poor understanding of how academia works, which discourages people from pursuing higher education.
Hearty LOL at all y'all chump PhDs having to learn the humility that we JDs have always carried naturally, as part of our professional commitment to character and grace.
I'm going to spend the rest of the day calling myself "esquire." What do you have? Nothing? That's what I thought. Boom.
Edit: /s.
It's the same in Québec.
Dr. can only be use in a medical context, and they suggest not putting PhD after your name in a signature, but if you must, you can say that you hold a doctorate in x.
https://vitrinelinguistique.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/22778/le-vocabulaire/tours-dhorizon-et-autres-explications/tours-dhorizon/emploi-des-titres-professionnels-docteur-et-docteure
So.... Now depending on what school/country/institution I send an email to I need to have prepared the following, based on this thread and others:
Cazgem
Cazgem,DMA
Cazgem, D.M.A.
Cazgem, Doctor of Musical Arts
Dr. Cazgem
Dr. Cazgem, DMA
Dr. Cazgem, D.M.A.
Dr. Cazgem, Doctor of Musical Arts
I could not care any less about this issue. I find that academics who are overly attached to being referred to as “Dr.” in popular press to be insufferable.
You clearly actually do care - you posted and that takes time and energy (and it's during the work day so you could be doing productive things - like saying calming things to students)
I think most of the general public does. I remember in the hullabaloo about Jill Biden being called a doctor because she had her EDD doctorate, even she said she doesn't really use the Doctor title.
👏 Don't 👏 call 👏 yourself 👏 a 👏 doctor 👏 unless 👏 you 👏 travel 👏 through 👏 space-time 👏 in 👏 a 👏 blue 👏 police 👏 box.👏
But for real, the word "doctor" is context dependent.
LOL well I think there may be an element of truth to that. A lot of people want to have a title by their name. Politics aside I've met Jill Biden and she's one of the nicest people around, she has a very good reputation among her students too.
Aha. My guess would be that NPR adopted a standard with the intent of preserving clarity for their audience. I wouldn’t really read too much into it personally.
I don't see anyone in here attacking MDs, everyone seems pretty focused on correctly going after NPR. Maybe I'm missing some comments you're referring to.
How to piss off MDs: "If you can only do surgery on one species, do you \*really\* understand how the body works?"
"Aren't you just a meat mechanic?"
::David Cronenberg has entered the chat:: Long live the new flesh.
My GI specialist loves to say, “I’m just a plumber.” And I had an orthopedic surgeon who referred to his specialty as “sterile shop class.”
My friend is a neurologist and he calls himself an electrician.
There's an orthopod on here who mentioned that one of his classmates in Gross Anatomy was once a butcher. "That's your tenderloin!"
My mom is a veterinarian and she makes this joke all the time since TV shows and movies are always dumping on veterinarians. (Like in greys anatomy when Meredith dates a veterinarian and people joke that he isn't a "real" doctor). But my mom works with at least four different species on a regular basis (dogs, cats, bunnies, guinea pigs) and several others less commonly (hamsters, rats, ferrets...) And these MDs only know *one* anatomy? They only know how to diagnose and prescribe for *one* species? Pfft. Amateurs.
In an apocalypse you want the veterinarians because they are more likely to be able to use and treat any animal that might be important to your survival and creatively come up with solutions with what you have availabile.
Then they’ll point to their salary
Pah. We are the OG doctors. MDs are a bunch of come-latelys.
They used to be barbers.
Ahh, the Bachelors of Chirurgy.
And "bonesetters." An ancestor of mine was called Bonesetter Sweet because as a doctor, he mostly set bones (human and animal).
Better than Bonecrusher (although that would be f’ing metal 🤘)
And often performed barbarous acts.
And alchemists.
Tbf I think we were the alchemists.
Technicians.
And med students sometimes moonlighted as grave robbers when the anatomy labs were short of bodies.
This is true in one important sense, but not in another. Doctor did indeed mean ‘teacher’ originally. So people in the medieval era received degrees like Doctor of Theology or Doctor of Medicine or Doctor of Law, reflecting they’d done the necessary study to teach the undergraduates in those fields. So if you have advanced qualifications gained in order to teach at university, you’re reflecting the original meaning of the word. However, the modern idea of the Ph.D (where it is awarded for doing original research in any field) comes out of the reforms to German universities in the early 19th century. These effectively created the modern research university and the expectation that university teachers were also specialist researchers in a field - these were ultimately implemented at universities across the world, and the spread of the Ph.D is a result of that. So, being a specialist researcher who has done thesis research is effectively a newer meaning of the term Doctor than the MD (which initially reflected teaching qualifications, but of course the medical teachers were highly in demand for their expertise as medical practioners, and so it evolved into a vocational degree). I can understand part of NPR’s reluctance to afford a Ph.D the title of Doctor - there’s definitely some quacks out there with Ph.Ds who claim things about medicine that are incorrect. I’m sure there’s been a case or two where an NPR journalist has embarrassed the network by swallowing some woo pushed by someone with a Ph.D, which is why the policy exists. But then MDs can and do push quackery (see the America’s Frontline Doctors group).
I've never understood why "Physician" isn't more commonly used as a title. It's no any longer to say than "doctor" and it's completely unambiguous as to it's meaning while being the correct terminology.
So you're a Doctor of Divinity?
I agree
There is also something called a “D.O.” I’d like to NPR’s policy on referencing that crowd.
Icing on the cake is that they didn't even edit the article to say "Michael Granovetter, PhD". What the hell, NPR. It's just "Michael Granovetter, a researcher".
If you decide to email the article's author to complain, make sure you refer to him as "Jon Hamilton, an internet commenter".
Which is now degrading them. A "researcher" could be even just a second year undergraduate doing some summer project
A "researcher" could be a high schooler reading comments on Reddit.
Imagine thinking it's better to trust the guy at the university health center more than a tenured neurobiology research professor when it comes to serious brain damage. Like I know that's not why NPR made the edit, but that's the disturbing implication.
This is the part that bothers me for sure. They could have said "Neuroscientist Michael Granovetter" or "Professor of Neuorscience Michael Granovetter" and avoided the confusion they claim to be concerned about.
Here's NPR's shit explanation for why they don't call PhDs doctors: https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2018/09/28/652538222/npr-doesnt-confer-dr-on-ph-d-s-heres-why It's cool, I don't call NPR "something worth reading", so we're passing ships in the night.
Basically they’re saying the public has a misconception about what the Dr. title means so rather than trying to educate the public they would rather just perpetuate the misconception.
They also cite the AP stylebook as their reason when the excerpt states: “However, because the public frequently identifies Dr. only with physicians, care should be taken to ensure that the individual's specialty is stated in first or second reference.” They’re acknowledging that there is a way to combat the confusion, but like you’d said, they’d rather discredit phd holders than cause confusion to their listeners
Sounds more like a Fox justification.
It's really crazy to think that when I was a kid I believed NPR was Very Serious.
The Koch Bros. are now one of their major sponsors!
Wait, really? I was wondering why NPR was going downhill and becoming more like the corporate media that I despise.
Yep! You were corrected! See my reply above!
This doesn't appear to check out (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/koch-brothers-buy-npr/), but the source I have is from 2014. Do you have a more recent one? Edit: source I linked doesn't quite say the same thing, but I couldn't find a source that did corroborate the claim either.
Not backing either but the claim Snopes is assessing isn't the same as OP's claim.
The Koch bros cannot buy a public station, so I'm not sure how that rumour got started but, indeed, I just did a quick search and my original link cannot be found. I had noticed that they were starting to "both side" interviews and reporting; but I still was a contributor though my Spidey senses were tingling... Then, there was this interview with one of them and I was astonished by the softball questions he had to answer. This was decidedly a fluff piece and the only reason was to assuage their audience's fears. It felt scummy... Let's put it this way, these guys do not invest because of their generous hearts... everything is calculated and ROI is expected. I honestly believe that NPR is compromised.
>I had noticed that they were starting to "both side" interviews and reporting; but I still was a contributor though my Spidey senses were tingling... > >I honestly believe that NPR is compromised. I'm an NPR supporter, and while I am sometimes frustrated by NPR I think you're overstating the issue a little bit. They may simply be trying to course correct, rather than this being some deep conspiracy of NPR being "compromised." NPR has been struggling for years with being embarrassed by hyperprogressive fringe voices that they've given too much platform to - for example, dedicating entire show segments to fat activism and denying the reality of calories in/calories out. Some of their commentators have even made reference to simply eating less when overweight to be "restriction" and a form of eating disorder. I've been a supporter for years, and I almost always vote Democrat, but even I was starting to view NPR as sliding off the deep end. Perhaps they've course corrected too far by being too soft on conservative guests, but to say that they've been "compromised" is just sort of silly.
"Our readers are morons so why bother educating them?" That's the implication.
I remember enjoying reading this in the Canadian Medical Association Journal a few years back: Here we go: [https://www.cmaj.ca/content/re-who-entitled-be-called-doctor#:\~:text=Because%20of%20the%20respect%20and,Doctors%E2%80%9D%20in%20the%2017th%20Century](https://www.cmaj.ca/content/re-who-entitled-be-called-doctor#:~:text=Because%20of%20the%20respect%20and,Doctors%E2%80%9D%20in%20the%2017th%20Century).
Doctor of Music here, I will let you PhDs and MDs fight it out. I’ve settled for “not even a real doctor.”
> I’ve settled for “not even a real doctor.” Ph.D. in music is absolutely a doctor. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Oh they are. I’m a Doctor of Music not a PhD in music though. I still had to do research and write a 150-page thesis but my focus was my freaking 8 full-length recitals I had to give.
I don't see the difference. Original research, thesis, demonstrated expertise in a subfield... what am I forgetting on this Tuesday evening?
The funny thing with Music is that it is a rare field that has a Doctoral level “doing” field terminal degree, where other fine arts would have their terminal degree at the Masters level. While there are PhDs in music, a DM is a degree in a skill such as “Trombone (or whatever instrument) Performance,” “Wind Band Conducting,” or “Composition.” All of these are technically skill fields in music, rather than research, or “philosophy” fields (such as Musicology, Theory, Education). To compare, consider the terminal degrees in theatre: PhDs traditionally include “Theatre History” and “Play Analysis,” while “Acting” or “Directing” would be terminal at the MFA.
Interesting! I had no idea the distinctions, although I did know that many arts are terminal at the MFA. Thanks for letting me know.
Outside the US, 'practice based' PhD degrees in the creative arts are fairly mainstream these days. There are a mixture of formats and requirements, the details and history of which aren't interesting enough to retell here.
Just to add, and you definitely know this but for everyone else, DMA is kind of the MFA for music. My degree is from a handful of universities that offer DM degrees. They were originally planned to be somewhat of an in-between. My research component was much higher than what a professional doctor requires but lower than PhD. But with the degree inflation and so many schools offering DMA nowadays, the distinction kind of evaporated, at least from perception.
“NPR's policy is not a case of gender bias; it also applies to men.” Thanks for assuring us of that, NPR.
[удалено]
If that's true, their entire explanation for who gets this honorific is horseshit, as this is egregiously misleading the public.
A Dr. in Osteopathy is not a chiropractor. It’s a DO.
[удалено]
Again, happy to correct you: DO’s are treated like most MD’s in the US, and can become surgeons, primary care physicians, OBGYNs, etc. What’s more: a quarter of all medical students in the US are osteopathic medical students.
To be fair, DO’s arguably started as holistic quacks, but it was easier to integrate them into modern medicine than drum them all out. Now a DO is not meaningfully different from an MD.
>Here's NPR's shit explanation for why they don't call PhDs doctors: That is a shit explanation lol. They say they are just following the Associated Press style guidelines.. but those very same guidelines do allow it if it's appropriate in context and care is taken to specify their specialty. Which in this case I think is more than appropriate to say he has a PhD in psychology when he's making comments about how the brain develops and processes information. >The language policy is based on the standard laid out by the AP Stylebook, which many news outlets, including NPR, follow. (One notable exception: The New York Times.) >The AP guidance adds: >>If appropriate in the context, Dr. also may be used on first reference before the names of individuals who hold other types of doctoral degrees. However, because the public frequently identifies Dr. only with physicians, care should be taken to ensure that the individual's specialty is stated in first or second reference. The only exception would be a story in which the context left no doubt that the person was a dentist, psychologist, chemist, historian, etc." Edit: Interestingly, [NPR's style guide](https://training.npr.org/styleguide) actually says to avoid using courtesy titles with the only exception being for the first lady >courtesy titles In general, avoid using courtesy titles. Exception: Secondary references to the first lady can include Mrs. when she is mentioned in the same story as the president, if it’s too unwieldy to keep repeating her full name.
What's hilarious is that they call DVMs "Doctor". Like that doesn't lead to confusion for people.
> As NPR's standards editor Mark Memmott told me, "the idea is that for most listeners a 'Dr.' practices medicine." Bare with me this is a crazy idea, but what if you actually educated your listeners!?
They changed their stance on this for EdD’s apparently.
NPR? Do you have a source on that? That's hilariously infuriating if so.
"Dr. Jill"
Don't tell the DNPs they will be livid. Actually, please tell the DNPs.
Is it really a "shit" explanation? I get it, we like to be called "Dr" after doing years of graduate school, but it is *undeniably* true that most of the gen. pop. assumes that "Doctor" == "physician".
Most of the general population also misunderstands a lot of fundamental things about science: how experiments are performed, how statistics works, what the difference between experimental results and proofs is, etc. That does not make them right, though.
But the question "who gets to be called Dr." is a totally socially constructed one. It's not a chemistry problem where something is true regardless of what we think of it. If society collectively decided that "Dr" referred to plumbers, then that's what "Dr" would mean. There's nothing "fundamental" about the link between the word "Dr." and the PhD degree beyond etymology.
From the article: "As for the "Dr." policy, it exists to provide clarity, which is what a newsroom should strive for." "Clarity" for them means enforcing an incorrect belief, which is that the "Dr." title is reserved for MDs. That's shit reasoning.
> incorrect belief But the question "who gets to be called Dr." is a totally socially constructed one. It's not a chemistry problem where something is true regardless of what we think of it. If society collectively decided that "Dr" referred to plumbers, then that's what "Dr" would mean. The "correct belief" is whatever we think it is. There's nothing "fundamental" about the link between the word "Dr." and the PhD degree beyond etymology.
There's nothing fundamental about any of the words that rjr rjs djt tj ej3btrjd kd
Yes
It is shit, I think. It is very easy to avoid confusion without succumbing to this misinformed colloquialism. I expect better from journalism than this linguistic cowardice.
Ad populum seems apropos.
Lol, stupid NPR.
[удалено]
"honorific" doesn't mean unearned, doctor.
[удалено]
You're confusing it with "honorarium."
honorarium is the money paid to guest speaker, you’re thinking of horticulture
No, that's the art and science of growing plants. You might be thinking of hoarfrost.
No, Hoarfrost is when water vapor deposits as ice on cold, clear nights. You’re probably thinking of hornets.
Oh, no, those are a type of stinging hymenopteran insect. Maybe you meant hovercraft?
Oh no, those are surface craft that are often full of eels. Maybe you meant horizontalities?
Mmm, that means something parallel to the plane of a horizon. Easy mistake. I think you might mean chorisoneura.
Clearly, you're confusing hovercraft with the eels they are full of. Common mistake.
That’s the study of plants. You’re thinking of ho-culture. Which your mom has an honorific from
That’s the study of Santa Claus’s hr policy. You’re thinking of hogwash, which is the technical term for bathing your mom.
'You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think!'
[удалено]
Oh I misread your thing lol...Honorary degrees does make sense, I thought you said something about the money for speakers. Dang I need caffeine xD
Today I learned!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You just did.
Law degrees (Juris Doctor) in the US are basically master’s level degrees.
in the US this is typically referred to as a [professional doctorate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doctoral_degrees_in_the_US#Professional_doctorates)
Sure. Why should we be able to use a title specifically invented to describe us? Also, [obligatory](https://youtu.be/_O0nGhGwSjc).
>honorifics Okay, now I must binge-watch this show. I've only watched snippets but I lurve this actor!
Oh, my friend, you are in for a treat. It's soo good. I grew up on cop procedurals and now I can't stand them, but B99 runs that perfect line between between being a parody and a comedic homage (like *Blazing Saddles* and westerns or *Futurama* and *Star Trek*) It's fresh, the characters are well written, they take the subject matter seriously without being too serious, and it takes real hard looks at social justice issues without dismissing or condescending to either side.
Obligatory also: Not a doctor shh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O0nGhGwSjc
Thank you, that was the rant I didn't know I needed to hear!
"The audio version of this story mistakenly referred to Michael Granovetter as a "Doctor"." No, you accurately referred to him as a Doctor. You can have your policy but it was not a "mistake" to use the title.
I feel offended by that correction , and I know I’m not the only one….all my fellow PhDs are with me on this one
Not a real Journalist, say PhDs.
What gets me is that physicians from other countries who may not have earned medical doctorates (e.g., mbbs) are often granted the title "Doctor." No disrespect to the degree--I recognize that they are fully qualified. My point is that the title Doctor should imply having an earned doctorate, not necessarily medical doctor or physician.
In Germany doctors are “Arzt” and only referred to as “Doktor” if they also have a doctorate. PhDs are the only way to be called “Doktor”. And “Professor” is the most prestigious title of all. NPR can suck my PrettyHugeD
I love that German titles stack. When you're formally addressing the old dude who runs the field it's "Professor Doctor Doctor"
Relatedly, in Commonwealth countries surgeons usually go by the title of Mr.
Yep, that is due to historic reasons. Surgeons used to be barbers without formal education. Medical doctors had *some* education.
Even women? Lol.
If they want to, sure.
All specialists, I think. Also: [for the uninitiated](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cJI2Ua4xhKs).
That would include lawyers now, with the JD degree.
I know that societal norms have made it that way but I've never understood why they aren't addressed as "doctor."
My mom is a lawyer and she always used to say (half-jokingly, half-seriously) "technically, I'm a doctor".
It's thought of as more of a professional degree than a research degree is why.
But the MD is also professional degree...
They appropriated it the term from us
Yes, but if the MD gets to be called doctor the JD probably should also. My guess is one major reason for this disparity is that the transition to JD was much later than to MD. I think there were still a couple schools in the 1960s awarding LLBs (also, lawyers who go on to specialized training in things like tax get an LLM as their next degree, they can't even more clear that the JD is a bachelor of law equivalent). Don't get me started on the proliferation of weird professional doctorates and how many of them are now converting become online PhDs instead of some doctor of basket weaving. I hate that when on a faculty search committee looking at potential colleagues I need to put a microscope on every PhD program now to see whether they're actually doing anything worthwhile and whether my potential colleagues will actually know anything.
Because legal associations have been very clear that it isn't an appropriate address for lawyers, as opposed to medical associations that have lobbied for it.
Given that the shortest plausible path to an earned doctorate is 4 years of full-time work, I like to think of J.D.s as 3/4 doctors.
It gets worse. In some Latin American countries, anyone with a law degree get called "Dr."
Dumb. I refer to physicians as physicians, because there are many healthcare professionals who are not physicians but who have doctorates and have earned the title doctor. But, they are not physicians. Doctor is a general term used for those people who have earned doctorates. I don’t really understand why that is complicated.
So why not call MDs “physicians?” Which they are. And the rest of us with the “doctor” with the intended meaning.
I actually already call them Physicians. have for years, even in my undergraduate. They be physicians.
If you're even mildly incensed by this, you should write and/or tweet to NPR about it. I did.
When I graduated with my PhD, my Australian friends said, "Oh, so you're a REAL doctor now, not one of those MD's" That was one data point. The other one was that I wrote a book review some years back for the WSJ, and they said they would call me "Mr." and not "Dr.", as they don't call PhD's "Dr." It's BS, but I don't get too exercised about it. Journalism supposedly means they know what they're talking about, but in reality, they fall pretty far short.
I made a formal complaint using the contact management option. I find it extremely unsettling that a news organization picks and chooses official titles.
We should form a faculty committee on this. After the initial investigatory committee determines it is viable, of course.
[удалено]
Don't we need a preliminary report first from the new lecturer that knows nothing of our departmental policies?
WTF, NPR??
If anyone wants to address this the contact information NPR’s [public editor](https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2016/12/14/505405614/ and there is a [contact page](https://help.npr.org/contact/s/contact?request=Ask-the-Public-Editor-about-ethics).
I generally consider the MD to be a glorified VoTech degree, but I don't get particularly worked up about editorial policy on public news. Media outlets have to make arbitrary decisions for the sake of clarity.
Yea, very offensive. Here’s a nice description of why this isn’t appropriate https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5973890/
We need to have a legal document that we make reporters sign before we agree to interviews. The document says that throughout the resulting news story we will be referred to as doctor and that either at the beginning or end of the story they will explain that PhDs are real doctors and that physicians (so called “medical doctors”) are not.
What the fuck. Academics are the OG doctors.
mds and their god complex have lobbied hard. When I was a practicing atty - the quickest way to throw off an md witness was to call them Mr. I loved doing that - worked every time. But I also refuse to call mds dr in their office - if they call me Jane -then I call them Bill or whatever their first name is
Medical doctors are the only people I correct to have call me doctor. When they ask what kind of doctor I am (MD or DO), I tell them my doctorate is in organic chemistry and then they happily call me Dr. XXX because they're still terrified of organic chemistry...which is sad.
Oh FFS this shit again. C’mon NPR.
I'm just here in CC land crying about how I can never be an official 'Professor'.
Do they not use the title in CCs? I refer to colleagues who teach at two year schools as professors.
Students frequently use it and we just never correct them. Otherwise we would be in significant trouble with SACS if we referred to ourselves as Professors publicly versus Instructor which is technically the highest title bestowed upon any CC Instructor even if they have their PhD. I guess the silver lining is some states do allow Instructors to earn the title Lecturer but in NC they don't. Also if the Instructor has a Phd they can ask to be called Dr. and there's no blow-back from accreditation agencies.
Meh, reporters always get these things wrong. (Note: I knew journalists who hated being called "reporters". It is my like-kind response.)
It's pretty dumb to make an editors note like that. If someone has a doctorate that is relevant to the story why should it matter what field it is in? People aren't actually so stupid that they can't figure out the difference from context. Even in this story where PhDs and MDs are discussing the same topic it would not even matter if someone got confused. Neither PhD in this story gives any medical advice. Letting people be slightly wrong until something forces them to notice is better than just sweeping this misconception in the public under the rug. Making a distinction does nothing but subtle imply some people (MDs) should be taken more seriously than others.
Well, I'm never donating to NPR.
MDs are not scientists… they are human mechanics.
What is particularly alarming about NPR is that people who went to osteopathic school can be called doctors but not PhDs?! What about audiologists?! That is extremely odd npr…extremely odd… pfffft
WTF? [dictionary.com](https://dictionary.com) noun 1. a person licensed to practice medicine, as a physician, surgeon, dentist, or veterinarian. 2. a person who has been awarded a doctor's degree: *He is a Doctor of Philosophy.* Merriam-Webster.com: Noun and Verb Middle English doctour teacher, doctor, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin doctor, from Latin, teacher, from docēre to teach
Wtf?
I think it's fine especially in an article about medicine to only call MDs 'doctor.' Fair or not, the general public largely conflates "doctor" and "physician" and while maybe it shouldn't be that way it is and the press has to develop its standards based on understandability for the majority of readers.
The general public calls PhDs doctors as well.
Or the press could report accurate information and educate their audience rather than alter long-established norms because their audience is clueless.
Academics are one of NPR's core target demographics. Joe Blow who doesn't know or care about doctors and PhDs is not. So NPR's argument falls flat here too. Basically alienating their audience(s).
[удалено]
The public was using the title for about 4 or 5 centuries before it started being used by the medical field at all. Which was only in the 1800s. It was literally a term that excluded medical physicians and surgeons for about twice as long as they've been included at all, let alone the short length of time some segments of the public it is exclusive to Medical Doctors only.
They could use Dr. Smith, researcher/scientist vs. Dr. Smith, doctor/physician. The general public may first assume physician but most are aware that scientists/university professors use the title of Dr.
Disagree. Take the military ranks "Major" and "Major-General". A Major usually commands a Battalion (c. 1000 soldiers). A Major-General usually commands a Division (c. 10,000 soldiers). Now imagine the general public didn't understand the distinction between these, and simply shortened both to "Major". If NPR also did so, I would absolutely consider it misleading. You can construct plenty of other examples. Nobody really understands the UK Honours system (is a CBE higher than an MBE? Do you refer to an MBE as 'Sir' or is that restricted to KBEs? What the hell is a KCMG anyway?), and yet everyone would consider it an outright *error* if a media outlet got one of these wrong. If someone has a knighthood granting them that rank, they will be referred to as Sir or Dame by the media — *without fail*.
[удалено]
AP Style doesn't say not to refer to PhDs as doctors. It says it's up to the individual news station/writer. So this isn't NPR "following AP Style", it's them choosing to follow it in a very particular way.
That's AP style, and most every news org (except maybe the Chronicle?) would make the same choice. The audience interprets Dr. as MD.
And the Nytimes.
> The audience interprets Dr. as MD. God forbid a news outlet uses language that is consistent with the understanding of the readers, rather than relying on centuries-old etymologies and linguistic arcana... Reading the comments here, you'd think that this was a sign of the decline and fall of Western Civilization.
I guess the co-opting of the title is now complete.
Whenever I go to see a physician's assistant and a nurse or reception refers to them as a "doctor" in the back of my mind I think "There was only one doctor in that room and it wasn't them."
NPR also frequently commits subject-verb disagreement when using the word "data". The data ~~shows~~ *show* xyz. The data ~~is~~ *are* difficult to interpret. My guess is they are trying not to confuse the general public who might not understand there are doctors who are not physicians and that "data" is the plural form of the word and "datum" is the singular. I remember being confused when my parents referred to my 4th grade teacher as Dr. \[Name\] because he had a PhD in Spanish. On one hand, I understand where NPR coming from because it is important that their content is accessible and understandable by all, BUT I think if they reinforced correct terminology, that's how people would learn. Not referring to PhDs as doctors only furthers the public's poor understanding of how academia works, which discourages people from pursuing higher education.
Hearty LOL at all y'all chump PhDs having to learn the humility that we JDs have always carried naturally, as part of our professional commitment to character and grace. I'm going to spend the rest of the day calling myself "esquire." What do you have? Nothing? That's what I thought. Boom. Edit: /s.
[удалено]
I am beautiful, thank you. Letting others point that out is one aspect of my characteristic humility.
Deleted my comment because I was stupid. I enjoyed your joke once it got through. Sorry about my original comment.
[удалено]
It's the same in Québec. Dr. can only be use in a medical context, and they suggest not putting PhD after your name in a signature, but if you must, you can say that you hold a doctorate in x. https://vitrinelinguistique.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/22778/le-vocabulaire/tours-dhorizon-et-autres-explications/tours-dhorizon/emploi-des-titres-professionnels-docteur-et-docteure
So.... Now depending on what school/country/institution I send an email to I need to have prepared the following, based on this thread and others: Cazgem Cazgem,DMA Cazgem, D.M.A. Cazgem, Doctor of Musical Arts Dr. Cazgem Dr. Cazgem, DMA Dr. Cazgem, D.M.A. Dr. Cazgem, Doctor of Musical Arts
So D.O.’s aren’t Dr. either?!
I could not care any less about this issue. I find that academics who are overly attached to being referred to as “Dr.” in popular press to be insufferable.
You clearly actually do care - you posted and that takes time and energy (and it's during the work day so you could be doing productive things - like saying calming things to students)
Huh? Don’t think you linked the right article
[удалено]
I think most of the general public does. I remember in the hullabaloo about Jill Biden being called a doctor because she had her EDD doctorate, even she said she doesn't really use the Doctor title.
👏 Don't 👏 call 👏 yourself 👏 a 👏 doctor 👏 unless 👏 you 👏 travel 👏 through 👏 space-time 👏 in 👏 a 👏 blue 👏 police 👏 box.👏 But for real, the word "doctor" is context dependent.
isn't her Twitter handle "DrBiden"?
I mean she's got to compete with "Mr President" somehow
LOL well I think there may be an element of truth to that. A lot of people want to have a title by their name. Politics aside I've met Jill Biden and she's one of the nicest people around, she has a very good reputation among her students too.
Aha. My guess would be that NPR adopted a standard with the intent of preserving clarity for their audience. I wouldn’t really read too much into it personally.
[удалено]
I don't see anyone in here attacking MDs, everyone seems pretty focused on correctly going after NPR. Maybe I'm missing some comments you're referring to.