If the New York Times journalists behind the much-criticized obituary—that originally led with pioneering scientist Yvonne Brill’s fab “beef stroganoff” and mom skills—had only turned to the AP Stylebook’s longstanding rules for covering women, they would not have found themselves so deep in the stew.
The Times uses its own stylebook, which has an entry on how to minimize gender-specific labels, but the widely-used AP one goes beyond that. I looked under “sexism,” which lacks its own entry but refers you to “man,” “mankind” and “women.” Thumbing a few pages back, the recommendations under “women” were just as I remembered—a road map of how not to write that New York Times Brill lede.
The obit’s original opener, which was later reworked, read:
She made a mean beef stroganoff, followed her husband from job to job and took eight years off from work to raise three children. “The world’s best mom,” her son Matthew said.
But Yvonne Brill, who died on Wednesday at 88 in Princeton, N.J., was also a brilliant rocket scientist
The AP states: “Copy should not gratuitously mention family relationships when there is no relevance to the subject, as in: Golda Meir, a doughty grandmother, told the Egyptians today…” Yes, that AP example is old. Still, a story about heads of state in breaking news is not the same as an obituary summing up someone’s life, where family relationships are relevant.
Another AP point warns against “aha” lady reveals: “Copy should not express surprise that an attractive woman can be professionally accomplished, as in: Mary Smith doesn’t look the part but she’s an authority on…” In the Times case, of course, the surprise is the combination of domestic skills with rocket science.
But somehow, those simple and clear AP guidelines—unchanged for the past 40 years—have been forgotten amid an outbreak of “he said, she said” exegesis over whether it is woman-friendly or sexist to emphasize a lady rocket scientist’s domestic side. It would have been so much simpler to just haul out the Stylebook.
The lack of reference to outside journalistic standards or history in the Times’s response to popular uproar around the obit became especially glaring in obit editor William McDonald’s defiant reaction to the pummeling. In public editor Margaret Sullivan’s post about the fracas, McDonald expressed surprise that anyone was offended, explaining in direct contradiction to AP style that the obituary led with Brill’s cooking and mom status to create a reveal in the second paragraph.
“It never occurred to us that this would be read as sexist,” McDonald told Sullivan, elaborating that the obit intended to show how extraordinary the octogenarian Brill had been in her day.
Perhaps following this basic AP style no-no against could-you-believe female reveals would have prevented the intensity of Web outrage and parody. It’s an interesting question, since the Washington Post obituary of Brill draws on many of the same sources, with a similar mix of personal and professional material, but with more nuanced writing and no “aha” reveal. The Post lede reads:
Yvonne Brill, a pioneer in spacecraft propulsion who suspended a promising career to raise three children and then returned to work full time to achieve her greatest engineering successes, died March 27 at a hospital in Princeton, N.J. She was 88.
The Post avoided the outrage directed at the Times even though it, too, broke some of the AP rules in its entry on women: “Use the same standards for men and women in deciding whether to include specific mention of personal appearance or marital and family situation.”

Excellent piece. Well said.
#1 Posted by Amy, CJR on Wed 3 Apr 2013 at 05:53 PM
Perhaps the Times should have followed the AP's example and published no obituary at all.
#2 Posted by Scott Brady, CJR on Wed 3 Apr 2013 at 06:07 PM
There's no controversy except what is contrived by busybodies, social engineers, and other petty tyrants. Just more "sexist" hooey. Her most dignified, productive, long-lasting, noteworthy roles in life were mother, sister, wife, daughter, cousin, friend. We all are family members firstly; then, we are friends, coeds, coworkers. End of (non-)story.
#3 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 3 Apr 2013 at 06:14 PM
The Times would not have published the obituary for a women with only the domestic skills. Her professional accomplishments should have opened the story.
#4 Posted by RMC, CJR on Wed 3 Apr 2013 at 06:33 PM
I knew AP style was good for more than just double checking the format for acronyms! Fantastic piece.
#5 Posted by Liesl, CJR on Thu 4 Apr 2013 at 10:05 AM
Excellent piece, Jessica. I thought the most laughable part of the whole affair was the New York Times' absurd effort to defend the obit - after they had removed the beef stroganoff.
Funny you should mention Golda Meir, though. According to this bio: http://www.miriamscup.com/MeirBiog.htm
"Golda Meir may be the world’s most famous grandmother."
Oy, vey.
#6 Posted by Josie Glausiusz, CJR on Thu 4 Apr 2013 at 10:15 AM
The point that these guidelines exist and are still necessary is well made. It will be interesting to read future obituaries of accomplished women to see whether the Times - as well as writers at other news organizations - choose to follow them.
#7 Posted by Kelly Caldwell, CJR on Thu 4 Apr 2013 at 10:32 AM
It's amazing that these guidelines have existed for 40 years and still are ignored. Thanks for an insightful piece -- a truly useful reminder for all journalists.
#8 Posted by Stephanie P., CJR on Thu 4 Apr 2013 at 02:03 PM
Of course, the headline on the obit identified her as a "pioneering rocket scientist," which kind of sinks the whole argument about "leading off" by identifying the late Ms. Brill as a homemaker, doesn't it?
And I think it's inconsistent to compare the Times story to an example that suggests beautiful women can't be smart. At a time when everyone's arguing about women "leaning in," I was struck at her obviously impressive dual accomplishments, and wondered how much more she could have accomplished as a scientist if she'd had better options on the home front.
#9 Posted by Brian O'Connor, CJR on Thu 4 Apr 2013 at 02:45 PM
This is the most enlightening and intelligent story I've read on the matter. Thank you for doing the research and actually digging into the history on this one!
#10 Posted by Emily, CJR on Fri 5 Apr 2013 at 11:49 AM
The AP actually allowed the use of "Ms." in 1977, the year of the revamp, and does just as Ms. Seigel describes by warning against sexist language. While I love the Stylebook, I do want to warn against holding it up as a perfect example of eliminating sexism in language. The "his/her" entry does still advocate the use of the generic "he" in cases where "an indefinite antecedent may be male or female," though no other major style book does.
#11 Posted by Sandra Schaefer, CJR on Fri 12 Apr 2013 at 01:41 PM
The AP actually allowed the use of "Ms." in 1977, the year of the revamp, and does just as Ms. Seigel describes by warning against sexist language. While I love the Stylebook, I do want to warn against holding it up as a perfect example of eliminating sexism in language. The "his/her" entry does still advocate the use of the generic "he" in cases where "an indefinite antecedent may be male or female," though no other major style book does.
#12 Posted by Sandra Schaefer, CJR on Fri 12 Apr 2013 at 01:43 PM
The AP actually allowed the use of "Ms." in 1977, the year of the revamp, and does just as Ms. Seigel describes by warning against sexist language. While I love the Stylebook, I do want to warn against holding it up as a perfect example of eliminating sexism in language. The "his/her" entry does still advocate the use of the generic "he" in cases where "an indefinite antecedent may be male or female," though no other major style book does.
#13 Posted by Sandra Schaefer, CJR on Fri 12 Apr 2013 at 01:44 PM