Word: attacked
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1910-1919
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...should not the Monthly and the Advocate muck-rake each other? We offer a few suggestions for the Monthly's opening attack. It may point out that the account of the Council of Federated Clubs is informing but prosy; that the "Tale--Full of Sound and Fury" really signifies nothing, and is unspeakably silly; that in "An International Love Affair" a fair story is marred by an effort to be smart; that the "Three Moods of the Marsh" are vague and vapid. (Alliteration is always effective in muck-raking; the fitness of the words is less important). The critic...
Considering the condition of the field and the fact that this is the first game of the season, the work of the University team was quite satisfactory, though there is need for improvement in a concerted attack. Andover lacked team-play and its defence was ragged...
...other than encourage communications, for which it is never itself responsible. Again, if it is true that the CRIMSON does not lend enough space to reports of lectures, to dramatic criticism and to other subjects of purely intellectual interest, the mistake is easily remedied. In defence of this last attack, however, it must be remembered that the CRIMSON very justifiably devotes most space to those topics which are of the greatest undergraduate interest. And if the undergraduates are more generally interested in athletic news than Noble lectures, it is rather the latter's tastes than the CRIMSON's allotment...
...purposely avoid a defence of the CRIMSON'S policies and methods. What is objectionable in the Monthly's attack is its wholesale and biased attitude of muckrake. For instance, we are told editorially that the "English of its stories ... is lax, incorrect, even worse than that of the average daily paper." Although the work is entirely done by untrained undergraduates it is fair to say that its print is clearer, its grammar purer, and its typographical mistakes fewer, than that of almost any daily paper in the country. Indeed through the whole series of Monthly articles...
...Wescott and the editors of the Monthly, who are of course directly responsible for this inexcusably careless misstatement of facts never even took the trouble to interview the president about this grossly misreported conversation. This obviously slanderous criticism is unfortunately too characteristic of the Monthly's whole method of attack to require further notice...