I’d like to discuss the absurd and unapproved use of single names by celebrities.
No, I’m not referring to the occasional deference that a celebrity receives by the public when he or she has attained star status. An example of this would be when Humphrey Bogart had become enough of a star to be called simply “Bogie.” Or when Elvis Presley became known as simply “Elvis.” Or even when Charles Lindbergh became known as “Lindy.”
No, what I have in mind is people like Gallagher, or Madonna, or Rhianna. (Actually, I still don’t know who this last person is.) What all of these people have in common is that they decided to call themselves by one name first, then worry about becoming stars later. No doubt a clever marketing manager thought that a single name would distinguish them from all the other nobodys out there who were trying to be stars.
Then there are those celebrities who give themselves silly names to distinguish themselves from other actors, singers and the like. The so-called Queen Latifa is an example of this. Come on, really, what was she thinking when she started calling herself a queen? Has the woman no humility? Or was she simply referring to her “queen sized” wardrobe?
Then there’s that actor (and I use the term loosely) called “The Rock.” I mean, come on, does he actually sign his name that way when he registers at the Holiday Inn, or signs his income tax form?
Members of the news media don’t help matters any when they choose to refer to celebrities by their first names on the covers of magazines or in the lead-ins to television stories. “Brad drops Angelina,” “Britney Bares All,” and “Miley disses Disney,” are a few typical examples.
Even complete nobodys can become one-named stars once the media decides they are worthy of the first-name-only treatment. An example might be: “Kate Demands Child Support from John.” Thanks to America’s sick fascination with other peoples’ lives, most people who see that headline will know exactly who Kate and John are, even though they were complete unknowns just one short year ago.
Politicians rarely get the first name treatment. Apparently people seem to think that initials are more sophisticated with governmental celebrities – like FDR, JFK and LBJ, for example. For reasons that are obvious, only one president will forever be referred to (in a somewhat snubbish tone) by just his last name – NIXON!
There is an old rule in journalism that on first reference in a news story, a person should be called by his or her first and last name, then on future references, by his or her last name only. John Smith, in other words, should be called “John Smith” on first reference, then just “Smith” in subsequent references.
So, what happened, I wonder. in the case of Saddam Hussein? Clearly, if journalists were following the rules of their own profession, they would have called him “Saddam Hussein” on first reference, and “Hussein” in subsequent references. But no, all the news media referred to him as Saddam — his first name — every time they talked or wrote about him. What was that all about?
Now, if they had referred to George Bush as just “George,” it would have been a different matter, because they would have at least been consistent. But the first-name rule apparently applied only to Iraq’s president.
Incidentally, there is one media outlet (The New York Times) whose archaic style guide calls for inserting a “Mr., ” “Miss,” or “Mrs” before each name they use in the paper. John Smith, for example, would be called “John Smith” the first time, then “Mr. Smith” on all subsequent references. Similarly, Michelle Obama would be called “Mrs. Obama” the second time around.
But when the former president of Iraq was mentioned in the NY Times, their style guide would have dictated that they call him “Mr. Saddam.”
Or maybe, “the late Mr. Saddam.”
