The Anchoress dropped me a line a few minutes ago and said a reader was wondering why the New York Times refers to these women differently.

I know the Times has a tradition of always using an honorific — Mr., Mrs., whatever — which is very old-fashioned and, I think, nice. But I was stumped about this particular choice. (Here at CBS News, we get heat all the time for using “President” on the first reference of the Commander in Chief, and “Mr.” for subsequent references. Some people find it insulting that we only call him “Mr.” But we’re one of the few news organizations that reserves a title for the President, and only the President, or former President, as a sign of respect. The other TV networks use just his last name, so he’s “Bush” instead of “Mr. Bush.”)

Anyway…I did a little searching at the Times and found this explanation for the Mrs./Ms. conflict. It comes from Philip Corbett, one of their news editors:

Our style is to use “Ms.” unless a woman chooses to use “Mrs.” or “Miss.” That rule applies both to private individuals and to public figures.

Aside from these inquiries about “Ms.,” I’ve been surprised not to get more questions about our use of courtesy titles. After all, our continued insistence on Mr., Ms., Dr., etc., is perhaps our most obvious stylistic difference from other news organizations, which generally use bare surnames for second references to people. The Times’s style seems strange, at first, to every reporter or editor coming here from another paper.

I don’t know whether the lack of comment in this forum reflects approval of the courtesy titles, or just familiarity or apathy. I do hear occasionally from reporters who’d like to drop them. Most recently, when we reduced the width of our pages, several people suggested eliminating courtesy titles to save space (it wouldn’t really help).

Perhaps I’m tradition-bound, but this is one quirk of Times style that I would go to some lengths to defend. We strive for a tone that is literate, civil and serious: not fussy or old-fashioned, but also not chatty or self-consciously hip. It’s not an easy balance, and we don’t always get it right. But I think the simple use of courtesy titles — whether it’s “Mr. Bush,” “Mrs. Clinton” or “Ms. Rivera, a teacher from Queens” — injects a note of thoughtfulness and civility into our pages. Amid the daily cacophony, that seems a worthy effort.

Presumably, then, if “Ms. Palin” would rather be known as “Mrs. Palin,” she’ll drop the Times a note and they’ll change it.