I'm not concerned (well, in this day and age, Trump's revenge knows no bounds) about libel. It is the fact that if a black man stole a loaf of bread, he would not be referred to as "Mr. Jones, mechanic" (or whatever his profession). Classism, racism, and disregard for the victims are my concerns.
The courtesy title is NYT style -- antiquated, but NYT does that for everyone. The Epstein references to "financier" came from his description of himself long before he was in the news accused of crime. He was a financier, in fact, in using Wexner's POA, $, mansion for a pedo biz, just also a rapist
But they don't apply it across the board. e.g. "John Smith, grocery clerk, was found guilty of manslaughter."
Yes, NYT does apply courtesy titles across the board. I just opened 3 random stories; all use courtesy titles after first reference of first/last name. It's the only media I know that still uses that antiquated style. But minutia about media description is a distraction from what matters.
I'm not sure if I'm being trolled. I've already told you why it matters. Racism. Classism. Respect for the victims of these rapists. When referring to a rapist and you're talking about the evidence of his raping friends, he is not a "financier" (and he wasn't anyway).
Why would I troll you? I'm just answering your grapple with how objective news media works. NYT isn't going to apply opinions as adjectives on news pages. Having POA of Wexner's $billions does fit the definition of "financier," as much as we'd rather his ID be rapist. He wasn't convicted of rape.