Radio interviews

[Wozzawasp]

This puzzles me. On Radio 4 for years the usual way in which interviewers introduced interviewees was "In the studio we have Mr Joe Bloggs and Professor Horatio Moriarty". Then when addressing these people they would say "Mr Bloggs, what do you ......." or "Professor Moriarty how do you ....".
Suddenly a change occurred and now the format is "Joe Bloggs ....", but still "Professor Moriarty ...."
Why?
Should I perhaps find a hobby other than pedantry?

[Buenchico]

Using 'Mister' is simply a courtesy which, as the English language changes, is becoming regarded as obsolete. However, by referring to someone as 'Professor' the interviewer is recognizing their 'expert' status and reminding listeners of it.

Not so long ago, I can remember when anyone with a PhD would almost always be referred to a 'Doctor', even in social gathering. Nowadays, they're more likely to be called 'Fred' or 'Mary' for 'day to day' purposes but it would still be appropriate for a radio interviewer to refer to them as 'Doctor' if they've been invited to the studio because of their knowledge of the subject which they researched to acquire their doctorate.

Chris

[Wozzawasp]

Thank you Buenchico, I agree with all you say BUT would the same form of address be used in the pub afterwards?
Is anyone addressed as Joe Bloggs in normal conversation? Surely Joe, Mr Bloggs or ,in the old British public school manner just Bloggs?

Or perhaps "Mate" !!!

[Buenchico]

Presumably the full name (e.g. 'Joe Bloggs', rather than just 'Joe') is repeatedly used by interviewers so that people who turn on late (or who simply missed the introductions) will be able to work out who it is that's speaking.

Incidentally, I attended a school where the pupils were all known by their surnames and the staff referred to each other in the same way. (e.g. one teacher, seeking another, might enquire of a third, "I say, Smith, have you seen Forsyth today?"). That was in a traditional boys' grammar school in the 1960's.

However, by the time I was teaching in a Sheffield comprehensive school (1975-90), there was no greater way to offend a male pupil than to refer to him solely by his surname. I could, say, refer to someone called Michael Smith as Michael, Mike, Mikey, Michael Smith, Sunshine, Laddy, 'You boy' or by any of the many nicknames his friends had for him (even offensive ones!), without any problems. If I addressed him simply as 'Smith' his mates would probably have to hold him back to prevent him taking a swing at me. That was true of the even the most charming, well-behaved and helpful boys. The one thing that was totally unacceptable to them was to be addressed by their surname. (As far as they were concerned, it was more offensive than being addressed with a lengthy sequence of 'four letter words'!).

Chris

[reinganum]

I listen regularly to Private Passions (Radio 3, 12 noon Sundays � it's much better than Desert Island Discs), and the presenter Michael Berkeley frequently name-checks the guest with their full name
(e.g. "Now let's move on, Joe Bloggs, to your next choice which is...", or: "now tell me, Professor Joe Bloggs, why Schubert is your favourite composer...")

I, too, have always assumed that it's for the benefit of people who tune in part-way through. Most programmes over 20mins long also do a station-ident check ("You're listening to xxxx on Radio nnn") for the same reason.