Reader Ray Van Dune writes from Seattle:

On Saturday March 24, National Public Radio, correspondent John McChesney, who was until recently embedded with the Minnesota National Guard in Iraq, told us about his 700-mile trip through Minnesota, interviewing families who have loved ones serving in Iraq: “Reporter's Notebook: A Delayed Homecoming.”

The Minnesota Guard has been extended in Iraq for 4 months because of the “surge”, which will bring their tour of duty there to nearly two years in duration. In this context Mr. McChesney traveled to Minnesota and interviewed members of seven families. His report is comprised of about two minutes of air-worthy content, of which less than a minute is a direct interview with family members. This portion consists of one of the wives speaking alone at first, and then joined by another, discussing the terrible stress of raising a family without a husband, and the impact it has had on them. They speak of the inability to get a decent sleep or take the time to relax with a warm shower. They explain that even their closest friends cannot imagine what they are going through, and express some bitterness that the American public seems insulated from the war, unlike past wars that were fought by a much higher percentage of the population, and in their minds, a broader cross-section of it.

These women are clearly under terrible stress, and have every reason to be angry that their husbands will not be returning home when they expected. While they are also clearly very strong women, I hope the Guard is providing them with every form of support that it can. But, I know in my heart that no amount of even the most generous help can begin to assuage the terror they must endure in their most private thoughts, and I am truly sorry that they, or anyone, has to endure this hellish experience.

I must also comment on the reporting of Mr. McChesney. He has brought us a compelling story, and he treated these wives with respect and compassion in his reporting, as did NPR in its presentation of this piece. But unfortunately, I must say that I have serious concerns about what he has reported, or more accurately, what he may not have reported.

How can it be that a reporter of the stature of John McChesney drove 700 miles, interviewed members of seven families, and came back with less than two minutes of content, and less than half of which is an interview with just two of the presumably seven wives he spoke to? Of course, I know that Mr. McChesney was unlikely to have control over editing the raw material, or even what would go to air, and what would not. But if I were a reporter who had just returned from a trip that no doubt cost NPR tens of thousands of dollars, and less than one minute of material directly from the ostensible subjects of said expedition was aired, I would be worried about my job!

I would have to conclude that either most of my stuff was of poor quality, or that someone was out to make me look very bad. But I didn’t think what I heard was of poor quality at all, quite to the contrary, I found it compelling.

McChesney started the piece by telling us that “most” Guard families initially supported the war, and added that “some” still do. Even if most of the audiotape got zapped by the x-ray at security, couldn’t he have told us how many families originally support the war, and how many do now? With the scant material he apparently had to work with, one would think he would have been eager to put some meat on those fuzzy words “most” and “some”.

Bear with me on this. My understanding of the word “most” would mean that there were some wives or families who did not support the war, even before the deployment. And the word “some” when used to describe those who still support it, would indicate that they are much fewer, and implicitly now constitute a minority. But the only two of the presumed seven wives we heard from said nothing about not supporting the war. They expressed chagrin at their plight and even some bitterness, but I heard neither say anything like “this war is wrong”. Come to think of it, I didn’t hear the interviewer ASK them what they thought of the war, or much of anything else, for that matter. They emoted, he recorded. Were no questions asked at all in the interviews?

I am at a loss to explain how it is that NPR did not air the interviews of the majority of these Guard wives who it is clearly implied no longer support the war! NPR has never hesitated in the past to give plenty of air time to critics of the war – why are they silent now?

Why did McChesney come back with only one minute of live tape, from only two wives?

Bluntly, I think he got a lot more tape than that, but the rest is “unsuitable” for his purposes.

Beyond the fact that this piece was pretty thin for 700 miles and a minimum of seven family members interviewed, there are some interesting coincidences here. McChesney was embedded with these wives’ husbands in Iraq, remember? I wonder what those troops had to say when they got the email from home that McChesney wanted to interview their wives.

And have you forgotten that it was members of the Minnesota Guard that displayed the famous banner: “Halp us, Jon Carry, we R stuk hear in Irak!”? I get the idea that at least some folks in the Minnesota Guard don’t suffer liberals, and by extension perhaps reporters who work for NPR, gladly.

Consider, which is more likely: that NPR would fail to broadcast every last second of anti-war sentiment it could capture on the home front, or that John McChesney got some strong expressions of support for the war in some of those homes, and perhaps even a dressing-down?

And also notice what we did NOT hear Scott Simon say after this piece? Mr. Simon did NOT say, as he so often does: “If you want to hear more of John’s interviews with the families of the Minnesota Guard soldiers in Iraq, just come to our website at NPR.org”! No, apparently that’s all there was.

Let me put it plainly here: I suspect that John McChesney and NPR are deceiving their listeners in this report, by refusing to air the words of many of the people they interviewed. To edit out all but one minute of 7 interviews obviously exceeds any reasonable degree of editing for quality or air time. What other explanation could there be for this anomaly, other than to remove embarrassing comments about NPR, or about actual support for the Iraq war, or both?

And if my suspicions are correct, it is not just Mr. John McChesney that should be held to account here. It is impossible to imagine that the NPR production staff and the host, Scott Simon, could have been unaware of the strange “hollowness” at the center of this report.

We've occasionally heard from our hometown heroes serving with the Minnesota National Guard unit in Iraq. We'd be grateful to hear from any of their families back home who might be able to shed light on the questions raised by Van Dune. Please write us at powerlinefeedback@gmail.com.

UPDATE: Reader John Gaffrey writes:

I'm a regular reader of Power Line, and I'm also a regular reader of the Morrison County Record in Little Falls (used to be a resident until high school graduation in 1959, then it was enlist in the Navy and never look back). Anyway, you might be interested in a recent article that appeared on their website that provides a little perspective: "As the war enters its fifth year, the wait only gets longer."

Is it possible that NPR might be engaged in a little dishonest reporting? (he asks, tongue in cheek).

MORE: Ray Van Dune updates his report:

I have just found an 8-minute piece that McChesney did on NPR the following day, Sunday, and which I had not heard before. There was no indication in what I originally heard that it was to be followed by more, so I think my skepticism was not unreasonable. He interviewed four families and got some negative stuff that he clearly fished for, but my contention that he had probably thrown away much tape was clearly in error.

So I want to apologize for insinuating that he "lost" a lot of tape. He did not. Unless there is more to come, I just finished listening to the rest of it, and I believe four families were interviewed, over about 8 minutes. All the interviews were focused on negatives, and some even got to Bush-bashing, but I supposed that is not unexpected in the situation these folks are in.

I still wonder that no one expressed reluctant support for the war even so, and I do not accept that these interviews were fair and balanced - just that there was more to them than I said there was.

I have learned a lesson about checking and double-checking, but I wish to point out that NPR positioned the report, both on-air and on-line, as if this first interview comprised what was being reported for this trip in total, and that is what I responded to.

To comment on this post, go here.