But in a published headline, one ought to be addressed by their formal title.
Differences exist between casual conversation and publication. A distinction I shouldn’t have to point out as one that exists.
As long as the BBC is consistent (and not biased because of gender or other factors), I don't think it's a big deal.
From the BBC's style guide:
Use the title Dr (always abbreviated) for doctors of medicine, scientific doctors and church ministers who hold doctorates - but only when it is relevant. So it would be Mr Liam Fox. But do not use Dr for politicians who have a doctorate in politics, history etc. Surgeons should be referred to as Mr/Mrs/Ms.
Index-level headlines must be 30-39 characters long, including gaps - usually five to seven words. Story-level headlines can be up to 55 characters (a little longer as long as key words are within the 55) and should aim to include key terms to attract search engine referrals.
Avoid the US convention of using a comma in place of the word "and" (eg: "Crowe, Roberts in Oscar triumph").
If the attribution is clear, there is no need for quotation marks (eg: I’ve had enough, says Smith). Any quotation marks in a headline must be single.
Headlines might appear without an accompanying summary, so keep them simple. A cryptic headline, out of context, may be meaningless.
May have found my own answer much sooner but thanks nonetheless for that bit of information.
This is an assumption, but I would think that all the recommendations in their style guide were put in there with at least some consideration.
I don't think this is an attempt to minimize her accomplishments, unlike many of the comments here in this very thread.
My statement isn’t an assertion of requirement on the part part of the BBC. This is just opinion and really ought not be looked upon as something incendiary or contentious.
I personally think they should all be addressed by the titles they've worked lifetimes to earn, that anyone who holds a formal title such as Doctor should be addressed as such in a non-casual/non-informal environment, but I'm also willing to entertain that this is a possibility for why the difference may exist between Dr.'s Sagan, deGrasse-Tyson, and Bouman. And yes, there are probably, most likely others that are far less nuanced and charitable.
Would you be willing to entertain that viewpoint?
I think you are now beating a dead horse with this argument.
Apparently that is a problem for some in this community which is a damn shame.
Titles in general seem quaint and obsolete to me (and to many others). Seems like a relic from centuries ago, like from monarchies. I don't see why not participating in this is a "problem" or a "damn shame".
One can make intelligent arguments about the use of such titles. These aren’t.
Why is this a problem and why do you characterize respecting achievements as “white knighting”?
Are you here to tell me a man can’t respect a woman’s title without having an ulterior motive? Why do you believe this to be the case?