BBC’s low, dirty-minded interview with Julian Assange

From Allen Feldman:

I wrote the following letter of protest to the BBC in response to this sexist and stupid BBC interview with Assange.

There should be more protests to the BBC:

“John Humphreys’ interview with Julian Assange reached a new low for BBC when he repeatedly asked Assange how many “women” he has “slept with.” The question was sexist and irrelevant and I wonder if BBC reporters are required to reveal their private sex lives on air as part of their bona fides. Despite declaiming that “we can’t try the case here, (on-air)” that was precisely what he was doing in asking Assange to disclose his private sex life.

Further Humphreys proved his journalistic incompetence when he conflated the Swedish prosecutor leaking details of an investigation prior to charge or trial that compromises Assange’s presumption of innocence and wikileaks’ reporting of leaked state documents on undeclared wars that have caused mass violations of human rights paid for by taxpayers who have little or no knowledge of the damage being done in their names.”


Transcript: The Assange interview

He is under strict bail conditions while he fights extradition to Sweden where he is wanted for questioning about claims of sexual assault.

Today programme presenter John Humphrys went to meet him for what is Mr Assange’s first face-to-face broadcast interview since his release.

Q: Why won’t you go back to Sweden?

JA: I have been back. I was there for some five weeks after these initial allegations were made. They were dropped within 24 hours of them first being made. The most senior prosecutor in Stockholm reviewed them and they were dropped. Then politician Claes Borgstrom became involved, other forces became involved and the case, the investigative part of the case, was taken up again. We waited some four/five weeks to be interviewed, so I could put my side of this case forward, and that did not happen.

Read more.

5 thoughts on “BBC’s low, dirty-minded interview with Julian Assange”

  1. I wholeheartedly agree, I thought the interviewer came across as unprofessional – his tone of voice and way of questioning was as if he had a personal grudge or lost his professional edge.

    I thought the last question about how many girls was like a tabloid question, and I couldn’t believe the interviewers thickness in not understanding why Julian wouldn’t go to Sweden.

    Can you imagine if the guy were in Julian’s shoes?

    anyway, BBC lost points big time with me on that interview. I normally consider the BBC very professional and conservative. I don’t know what happened there!

  2. Yes, exactly what I thought. So biased from the outset! The snarky assertions “In that case you can catch the next plane back to Sweden”, trying to get Julian to call himself a martyr, and his inability to grasp the fact that Sweden’s judicial system has not been on the up and up and has been subverted by political string pulling. Julian kept his cool and presented himself as cool, calm, and collected. Way to go!

  3. I am really disappointed in JS. What on earth does he mean when he says Wikileaks is not involved in “leaking”, but in justice. I give Wikileaks credit for being in pursuit of justice, but how can their chief deny they also pursue leaks? It’s called WikiLEAKS, for goodness’ sakes!!
    I found his arguments weak (no pun intended), inconsistent, contradictory, partial, and his posturing pompous. Dickens’ novels are full of hilarious (“gentlemen”) characters just like JS.
    Well, as Tina Turner says: “we don’t need another hero…” Just as well, cos we ain’t got one!

  4. Humphreys came across as a sexually perverted old man who was jealous of an younger mans conquests.
    And how unprofessional to not even know that CableGate is based on information given to wikileaks by somone (allegedly the intelligence analyst Bradley Manning), and not on somone hacking into state department computer!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *