BBC 4 radio host John Humphrys this morning scored the first broadcast interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange since his release on bail last week. Humphrys visited Assange at the East Anglia mansion in which he is holed up under strict bail conditions. The testy back-and-forth is dominated by discussion of the rape allegations leveled at Assange, and his refusal to return to Sweden to face questioning on them. While the meatier issues at the heart of WikiLeaks are given pretty short shrift, the interview is definitely worth a read or listen, providing a pretty fascinating snapshot of Assange’s current state of mind and what he believes his organization is achieving. A transcript and audio of the interview can be found on the BBC’s website here.
Humphrys opens with the rape allegations, and what he sees as a potential hypocrisy in how Assange has handled them.
Q: Everything you say may be true. I’ve no way of judging that. But, surely you can see how very, very damaging, at the very least, it is to somebody like you, somebody who has spent a large part of his life saying: “People are accountable. We must have systems that do transparency. We must have systems under which the public knows what’s going on and people can be held to account.” And here you are facing, possibly facing, very, very serious charges indeed, double rape even, is a possibility - and you are saying: “I will not go back to the country where those offences are alleged to have been carried out to face the music.”
JA: No, I have never said that.
Q: In that case you can catch the next plane back to Sweden.
JA: No, I do things according to proper process. I stayed in Sweden for five weeks to enable that proper process to occur. Proper process did not occur. I left as part of, you know, just my normal course of activity - no complaints from the Swedish government. I have an organisation to run. I have my people to defend. There are other things at stake here There are other things at stake here. I have a serious brewing extradition case in relation to the United States. I have a serious organisation to run. People affiliated with our organisation have already been assassinated. My work is serious. I do not have to run off to random states simply because some prosecutor is abusing a process in those states.
Assange believes the Swedish prosecution has leaked material to British newspapers (and, in a Times interview, he admonishes the Guardian for having cherry-picked from the supposed leaks).
JA: Most of what we know is, in fact, from the newspapers because somehow the Swedish prosecution has been, deliberately and illegally, selectively taking bits of its material and giving them to newspapers.
Q: Can’t you see that it’s a bit rum for you to be sitting there under these circumstances. You, Julian Assange, the Wikileaks man, who’s become terribly famous, as has your organisation, for leaking material that other people didn’t want to see published and here you are saying: “They’ve leaked something about me.”
JA: Not at all. We are an organisation that does not promote leaking. We’re an organisation that promotes justice
Q: You hardly discourage it when you print a couple of million private cables.
JA: that promotes justice through the mechanism of transparency and journalism.
Q: Based on leaks.
JA: When a powerful organisation that has internal policies, that is meant to be creating and following the law, i.e. Swedish prosecution’s judicial system, abuses its own regulation and its own position to attack an individual, that is an abuse of power.
Assange also says he believes the two women embroiled in the allegations may have been “bamboozled into this by police and others. These women may be victims in this process.”

Sounds a bit of testy, jealous spite on the part of 'journalism' review. Assange is nothing more or less than an old-fashioned muck-raker, a thankless job that today's domesticated effete house-journalists do not wish to dirty their hands with.
Unless it's outing a Valerie Plame.
#1 Posted by danR, CJR on Tue 21 Dec 2010 at 01:30 PM
People affiliated with our organisation have already been assassinated.
No follow up on that bombshell?
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 21 Dec 2010 at 01:40 PM
@Mike H (and Joel Meares)
Yeah, what about that?
Any meat around that bone?
#3 Posted by murph, CJR on Tue 21 Dec 2010 at 02:22 PM
John Humphrys was so aggravating to read/listen to!!! All the assumptions he's made seem to come from the fact he reads tabloids for his background information, his insistence on making Assange call himself a matyr, his digging about for the number of sexual partners he's had... agh, way to go Julian, keeping your cool with this sensationlist!
#4 Posted by Joel, CJR on Tue 21 Dec 2010 at 05:41 PM
Amazing. This guy Assange is really on another planet. Imagine sanctimoniously describing oneself as "of good character" and admonishing people that "capable, generous men don’t create victims." And he's out on bail for multiple rape charges!
#5 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 22 Dec 2010 at 09:26 AM
Note to JLD.
No, repeat no, charges of rape or antyhing else have been filed in Sweden. The allegations are still under investigation.
The Swedish police have merely asked to interview Assange.
The BBC interviewer ws exceedingly aggressive in trying to catch Assange on some point, any ooint.
And, by tge way, I firmly believe that people should put their na\mes, ther real names, on their posts.
Barney Kirchhoff, Paris
#6 Posted by barney kirchhoff, CJR on Wed 22 Dec 2010 at 11:30 AM
Sorry Barney, I was quoting Michael Moore when I used the phrase "rape charges." I suppose I should apply something more stringent than Assange's own level of journalistic inquiry to the matter.
And BTW 90% of the posters here don't use their real names.
#7 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 22 Dec 2010 at 12:01 PM
Why did BBC send an interviewer John Humprey to go Face To Face (and NO Video produced - just AUDIO) with Julian Assange - was it just for Set-Up for a trumped-up sex charge & to get health checks (the 2 women never got health checks and we all know how those reports can be FRAUD - it's even on TV about Police depts creating fraud reports).
A reputable interview would be about Assange Wikileaks organization (what most people want to know) and why he got into it. SHAME on BBC. SHAME on John Humprey. Had Assange known the majority of interview was sex I'm sure he would not have agreed to it. He must have been told it was a "respectful" interview about Wikileaks and not some tabloid sham.
SHAM interviews are for propaganda purposes.
#8 Posted by grace S, CJR on Wed 22 Dec 2010 at 02:16 PM
@Barney: Not to beat a dead horse, but this whole subject is just so ripe with hypocrisy - imagine complaining about posters using nomes de plume when Assange's biggest supporters proudly call themselves "Anonymous."
#9 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 22 Dec 2010 at 08:30 PM
This review was about as meaningful as the intvu itself. The BBC had an opportunity to ask some serious questions about the information released by Wikileaks and CJR has missed a wonderful opportunity to do the same. Shame on you.
#10 Posted by Kingharvest, CJR on Thu 23 Dec 2010 at 10:58 AM
Having listened to the complete interview, I can't agree that JA was testy. He gave measured answers to predictable questions posed during a typically tiresome BBC adversarial interview. JH, sticking to his talking points, barged right past JA's remarkable assertion that Wikileaks associates have been assassinated.
Is it so difficult to tease apart the independent strands in this story? (1) Assessment of the means and aims of the Wikileaks organization. (2) The content and status of the criminal proceedings against JA in both Sweden and the US. (3) JA's exercise of his legal rights regarding extradition.
The work of Wikileaks will go on with or without JA. If he is guilty of the rape charges, he would not be the first advocate for political justice whose sexual ethics are not equal to his social ethics, nor the first to take stupid risks at a time when he should be especially cautious. He should be held accountable on all fronts, and covering these stories sans moral outrage would be a great stride in that direction.
#11 Posted by MH, CJR on Thu 23 Dec 2010 at 02:18 PM