I heard a couple of disturbing (well, at least they'd be disturbing if I hadn't had any previous NPR-listening experience) pieces on KQED over the weekend when I was driving back and forth between San Bruno and San Jose for the space development conference. I was reminded of them by the latest on the "fraudulent" Jessica Lynch story, related by Professor Reynolds.

The first was an attempted rehabilitation of John Kampfner and the BBC, in which they decided to interview him, with no one from the other side. It was full of softballs, low and over the plate. The most notable part was when he claimed that the doctors in the hospital had no motivation to lie, since they were trying to ingratiate themselves with the Americans so they could get vital medical supplies.

Ignore the fact that this makes little sense. What I found amazing (or, again, would have found amazing, had it come from a source known for balanced and intelligent reportage) was the failure of the interview to not only challenge this statement, or request elaboration, but to bring up the fact that if the lawyer's story were true, the doctors were guilty of war crimes. Isn't that motivation to lie? Apparently not to Mr. Kampfner and his enablers in the American media.

The other piece was a little later in the day, in a sob story about Christopher Hedges and the "suppression of his dissent." They of course interviewed Mr. Hedges, to get his side of the story (which is obviously the only one worth listening to). No discussion of the possibility that the speech might have been inappropriate for a college commencement, of course, or that some of those graduating might have been upset by this narcissistic soapboxing at an event that was supposed to have been about them. It was simply truth being spoken to power, and isn't it just terrible that such a brave and noble philosopher was shouted down, and had to be escorted away from the marauding troglodytes in the audience? The piece was essentially nothing but another commiseration with a put-upon leftie reporter who'd been getting a bad shake in the right-wing media.

But the highlight (or lowlight) of the piece was when the correspondent read a headline from a local paper, which was something to the effect that "Commencement Speaker Disrupts Graduation Ceremony." She read this with a tone of such obvious and blatant incredulity, that we were clearly supposed to wonder along with her how they could get it so wrong. It clearly never occurred to her that by his actions, he did indeed disrupt the ceremony. She apparently didn't comprehend the reality, which was that, intentional or not, his self-indulgent speech was the verbal equivalent of turning his back to the audience, dropping trou, and grabbing his ankles. It was an oratorical flipping the bird to the assembled.

And here's a little kicker. A commencement speech is supposed to be about the occasion at which the speaker is speaking. It should have some relationship to those about to go forth in the world, hopefully with a little advice. Some thought should go into it. But his speech was not only orthogonal to the subject at hand, it many not even have been original. It may be the same canned speech that he's been giving other places. If so, those who invited him should feel even further put upon.

Here's the event calendar for the University of Massachussetts. Take special note of Monday, May 5. Is there anyone out there who attended that speech? I'd be very curious to see how it correlates with the one at Rockford.

Anyway, I'm sure such thoughts never occurred to our intrepid interviewer and defender of Mr. Hedges' freedom of expression. It equally never occurred to her to get a point of view from the other side. After all, there's no need, is there, when you have the word of a prized reporter from that bastion of rectitude, the fabled New York Times?