On trouve ci-dessous un extrait d’une interview de la journaliste Jo Becker, du New York Times<\/em>, de Julian Assange (par t\u00e9l\u00e9transmission, Assange \u00e9tant toujours en r\u00e9sidence forc\u00e9e, du fait des artifices l\u00e9gaux du Syst\u00e8me, \u00e0 l’ambassade de l’Equateur \u00e0 Londres). L’extrait est publi\u00e9 par le Washington Examiner<\/em> du 31 août<\/a>, sous le titre ironique de « Assange grills NYT reporter after question on Russia<\/em> » ; le verbe \u00ab\u00a0to grill<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0, dans son sens imag\u00e9, signifie \u00ab\u00a0cuisiner\u00a0\u00bb dans le sens d’interroger agressivement, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de la part d’une personne en position offensive et de sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 morale ou autre, vis-\u00e0-vis d’une personne sur la d\u00e9fensive \u00e0 cause de la faiblesse de sa position, de ses arguments et de situation. En g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, c’est le journaliste qui \u00ab\u00a0cuisine\u00a0\u00bb l’interview\u00e9, ici c’est l’inverse qui se passe : nous sommes dans une situation d’inversion compl\u00e8te qui situe bien les enjeux et la valeur des positions respectives.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Becker<\/em><\/strong> : « …To the extent that certain leaks benefit other countries, I’m thinking particularly … Russia, is that a coincidence?<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Assange<\/em><\/strong> : « Sorry, say that again?<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Becker<\/em><\/strong> : « I’m saying that if certain leaks benefit certain countries, for instance<\/em>…»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Assange<\/em><\/strong> : « This is absurd. This is like saying the New York Times publishes something … ‘Is Putin going to use it as a talking point?’ Ridiculous… What kind of consideration is that to take into account if you have a mission to publish the press documents from whistleblowers and others to educate the public? You obviously can’t be second-guessing yourself at an editorial level like that<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n » Would you? Would you, the New York Times, having received information about the election, saying the DNC leaks, not publish it, or suspend it until after the election?<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Becker<\/em><\/strong> : « Well, that’s a reader’s question. I think what I was getting at is that you would in fact prioritize those documents that come about an election, because you feel it’s important to publish while voters are making a decision. Is that correct? <\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Assange<\/em><\/strong> : « Well, I noticed you dodged the question there. Would the New York Times publish the DNC leaks?<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Becker<\/em><\/strong> : « Well, we’ve certainly written about the DNC leaks. I mean, I can’t speak for the entire newspaper<\/em>… »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Assange<\/em><\/strong> : « I would hope very much that the New York Times would. I think, probably, it would publish some stories, it might not do others. It has after all editorially endorsed one of the candidates and not the other. Obviously, whistleblowers and whatever source comes to you with whatever motivation, they’re not going to go to all that effort just to have you sit on that material and let it rot<\/em>… »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n