Melan

(We can leave the thread for journalism corruption, but just on this...) Then the issue in academia is money flowing to the more corruptable fields like science & engineering with the big corporate grants & revolving door with staff. The humanities might not get that, but OTOH they are getting pressured to "justify their existence" financially. I could probably agree it's rife in almost any human field though, as long as there are incentives there will be corruption.

Or then we have the "uncorruptable" critical academics, but then they're basing their work on Derrida or Marx and are so detached from reality they throw their credibility out the window. It's good to be critically detached, not so good to be derailed from reality. My position in law sometimes is something like a critical realism, but it's practically an orphan position. (You want to protect victims *and* think science works??? Wha...?)

Who is uncorruptable anyways? I cannot convince even myself that I would be uncorruptable in every situation. And I perceive myself to be situated in the more-reliable-than-50%-of-the-general-population side in the gaussian distribution curve of corruption. Problematic, yes?