Oxford poet quits in 'character assassination' controversy

From the article cited above, emphasis mine:

She added that she did not conduct a smear campaign against Walcott "but, as a result of student concern, I naively -- and with hindsight unwisely -- passed on to two journalists, whom I believed to be covering the whole election responsibly, information that was already in the public domain."
Padel said that she acted in "complete good faith" but could see that "people might interpret my actions otherwise."

Click to expand...

Why? Wouldn't the students do that themselves? What were the journalists meant to do with this information? If it's already in the public domain - and the event was twenty-six years ago - what "good faith" was involved in pointing it out to journalists again?

I'm not sure there was a Machiavellian motive there, but what the hell was she thinking?

More to the point, in view of the pathetic and insulting level of remuneration for this and the Poet Laureateship, why didn't Padel, Walcott and Carol Ann Duffy tell the powers-that-be exactly which orifice they can shove their prestigious posts in.