An emailer this morning asked a question I've heard discussed many times, from both sides of the aisle:

"In one of (The Star's) blogs today they referred to the president as 'Mr. Obama.' And while I've noted this before, usually with Fox News, I took this as a sign of disrespect. But with its arrival in (The Star) I was wondering if replacing 'President' with 'Mr.' is indeed correct."

The Star follows the Associated Press' copy style, which doesn't have a ruling here that I find. I can understand how someone might subjectively find it dismissive or insulting, but I have to confess it doesn't trip that trigger to my ear. I think it's probably often employed for the sake of variety in writing more than with any specific political intent.

Some papers have a codified style that all second references to a person should be written as "Mr. Jones" or "Ms. Jackson," for example. The Star doesn't follow that rule, though.