Thinking about Obama's middle name

Summertime and the livin’ is easy. Also the journalism news is fairly light (at least I’m not hunting it anyway).

But an item in Sunday’s Journal Sentinel Crossroads section prompted some thoughts. It was in the section’s “Best of the Blogs” feature and quoted a conservative blogger writing about Barack Obama. It called him by his full name, “Barack Hussein Obama.” Obama does not use his middle name normally, but some conservative talk show hosts (the blogger quoted Sunday has a talk show) and bloggers have been using the full name – some maintain as a way of implying Obama is a Muslim. Obama is a Christian, however, a recent poll showed that 10 percent of Americans believe he is Muslim.

The question for journalists is how do we handle this partisan argument. Because this will assuredly come up in our student media this coming election season, I emailed a couple of senior editors at the Journal Sentinel for their thoughts, and received very thoughtful answers from both. Here’s part of the reply from Kathy Schenck, assistant managing editor – copy desk, who emphasized the difference between news and editorial pages:

“On the news pages, we need a good reason to refer to Obama by all three of his names. He is known as Barack Obama. Adding his middle name is wordy and unnecessary to identify him. Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton unless he's being inaugurated or impeached. Those stories are historic in nature, so his full, formal name could be considered relevant.

“Now, if someone were writing an opinion column, that's a different story. They may have a good reason for referring to him that way, but I would bet it's to further the misinformation that Obama is a Muslim. If they are writing about his heritage, it could be considered relevant. But to use all three names without specific context would be confusing and misleading to readers.

“No one refers to John McCain by anything else. For fairness, Obama should get the same treatment.”

A response by O. Ricardo Pimentel, vice president and editorial page editor, addressed the question from the standpoint of opinion. I’m reprinting it in full:

“One of the purposes of our blogs feature is to depict as much as is permissible – given the general-interest readership of our newspaper – what is actually occurring and being said on the blog. Like it or not, one segment of the blogosphere is using the middle name. You will note,
however, that we don't use it in editorials we generate unless it's in context. Yes, we could edit them out of the blogs. While we excerpt for space, this other kind of editing, however, would serve to change the substance of the blog, beyond even tone. We could choose not to run
these. But then this wouldn't necessarily be representative of what's being said out there. And I would note that some of our bloggers have been pretty rough on President Bush and that we allow these as well. The blogosphere, for sure, is a different kind of animal.”

The lesson that I take from their answers – and one I learned on the job long ago – is that fairness is tough. While I understand the reasons to permit the use of all three names, I also realize that some Muslim leaders have take deep offense at what they view as a affront to their religion. Their view is that Obama opponents attempting to tie him to their religion are implying that there is something wrong with their religion. As Abdul Musaitif, who runs a Muslim pizzeria in Maryland, was quoted in the NPR story: “It's no shame to be a Muslim.” Implying there is, especially merely to attack a political opponent, is shameful, and I would hope that our student media can avoid this construction unless it is absolutely required. The guidelines offered by Schenck and Pimentel are good ones. A good rule of thumb is one that I was taught: use the name by which people are known -- or what they choose to use. When Prince decided to use a symbol for his name, we used his choice at the Journal. If Barack Obama decides to use his middle name, then we should. If not, we shouldn't.