Everybody knows the adage that undergraduate politics are vicious because the stakes are so low.
It’s “academic politics.”
Doesn’t The Times have editors these days?
Everybody knows the adage that undergraduate politics are vicious because the stakes are so low.
It’s “academic politics.”
Doesn’t The Times have editors these days?
I don’t think that even at The Times they can find anyone who can stomach going through a Hugo Rifkind article.
Not true, anyway. Count the number of pols who came up through Student Unions
“Doesn’t The Times have editors these days?”
Maybe the stakes at the Times are too low.
@ Robbo
So they are quite happy being vicious?
My problem with undergraduate politics was that it was so childish – knowledge and understanding both below my level as a pre-teen – that Igave up on it.
It’s not that they don’t have editors, it’s just that the editors are as ignorant and unlettered as the reporters. No depth of knowledge, no culture, no intellectual curiosity.