This past week, a number of world leaders spoke at the United Nations, including the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  In reporting his speech, NPR cited parts of his speech, indicating that he was “speaking though a translator”.  Actually, NPR was the one using and needing a translator.  Ahmadinejad was perfectly okay with speaking Persian.  Yet the reporting (not only at NPR) implied through the frequently used wording that his speech could only be understood as rendered “through a translator”.  Is this a picky point that doesn’t actually matter?  I don’t think so – it reinforces the unfortunate American sense that to be understood and taken seriously people need to be using English.  Couldn’t we report Ahmadinejad’s hateful speech as “translated here from the original Persian” or something else along those lines.  It would be great to show that it’s possible to use other languages to communicate.