Mr David Crow This is Me

 Web References

1. 1. Live! - Glasgow NUS Referendum: Free and Fair?

   live.cgcu.net/opinion/randomra - [Cached]

   Last Visited: 5/23/2007

   David Crow With a hard-fought and highly charged referendum at Imperial, David Crow asks questions about the fairness of the vote at Glasgow. David Crow, former editor of 'Guardian' at Glasgow
   ...
   David Crow, former editor of 'Guardian' at Glasgow
   
   David Crow is media columnist for The Business and former editor of the Glasgow University Guardian.
   ...
   Ain't happened yet, although David Crow is an exception and frankly I am bored with all this, particular as I have made a decade long commitment to Glasgow, these chaps will not do and can see the long term consequences of such actions.
   
   So David is correct, there is a lack of democracy and there was some coercion to be seen.
   ...
   What a desperate trick by Mr Crow to try and make comparisons with Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
   ...
   If that meets Mr Crow's definition of undemocratic, I wish him well when he moves to Zimbabwe. And were the Yes campaigners really just standing around not talking to people? In that case, it's surprising they got even the low number of votes that were cast for affiliation.
   
   A further hole in Mr Crow's argument is apparent when we remember that there was no imperative for the No camp to secure a high turnout. Had the referendum not met the 15% threshold, the status quo would have prevailed and GU would have remained unaffiliated. That's a different thing from the referendum result being "null and void" as Mr Crow claims: I don't think he understands the procedure involved. Granted, a decisive result such as this will give the No camp the most satisfaction, but even a low turnout would have sufficed, and could have been used by them to show how irrelevant the NUS is to Glasgow students. The people who had a real need for a high turnout were the Yes camp.
   
   I had to laugh at Mr Crow's citing of Guardian's headline as a supposed example of bias. What is the objection to such a factual statement, unless you are embarrassed by actually quantifying the drain it would have been on student funding at Glasgow, or don't think it would have been value for money? (And it actually understates the amount by some £2,500!). At worst, it represents the common newspaper failing of going for a short snappy headline.
   
   For all Guardian is indeed published by the SRC, it has usually managed whenever it wanted in the past to take its own separate line - sometimes vehemently so - from the elected Council or Executive of the SRC. I speak as one who was elected to the SRC in the mid to late '90s, and I'm still an occasional reader of Guardian. Mr Crow gives no evidence of what has changed, or why/how on this particular matter, the current editorial team was somehow obliged to toe the line. I read the issue published prior to the referendum (the one with the headline Mr Crow cites) and as another comment mentions, there was equal space given in that issue for articles by each camp. Indeed, the big picture with the story was the Yes campaign team! Oh, and for the benefit of non-Glasgow types reading this (and perhaps as a reminder to Mr Crow himself), Guardian is only one of the publications financed by the SRC. Are we to assume that the TV, radio and magazine outlets were all under the thumb as well?
   
   I'm sorry to see that a former Guardian editor submits for publication 700 such poorly argued words, a mix of some anecdotal observation, factual inaccuracy and shallow assertion. The attempt to drag in the plight of Zimbabwe as cheap opening and closing lines may be general crassness, or a specific realisation that he wasn't going to win the argument on facts and hence had better rely on a woolly appeal to the emotions - who knows? Either way, I shall not rush to read Mr Crow's current "media column" if this is his typical level.
   
   12. Claire W Nov 20 2006 21:47
   
   I hardly think Mr Crow is suggesting there is any similarity between Mugabe's regime and Glasgow Uni. Rather, he is using it as a reference point to demonstrate the ownership of the press by a strongly anti-NUS organisation and the unusual polling arrangements.
   ...
   Mr Crow's link to Zimbabwe is glib and superficial but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a columnist that doesn't use similar tricks to get readers hooked. He is simply articulating views that were not articulated elsewhere.
   ...
   "Cheap blow Crow.
   ...
   Mr. Crow should know about the university's agenda.
   ...
   Your last post seems to be agreeing with Mr Crow's article.
   ...
   - David Crow
   ...
   It does lend credence to David Crow's timeously put comment, "During my time as editor of the campus's only independent newspaper I found the officials I encountered to be nasty, self-serving and pernicious."
   ...
   As to Mr Crow's comments on the independant newspaper, Guardian.
   ...
   One last thing: although, as my earlier posts make clear, I found Mr Crow's article to be a lot of poorly argued nonsense, I do think it should be read attentively. A couple of people seem to think his remark that " ... the officials I encountered [were] nasty, self-serving and pernicious" refers to people at Glasgow Uni. It doesn't. He was talking about his dealings with NUS officials. On that point, I think he is 100% correct.

2. 2. www.kaboodle.com

   www.kaboodle.com/zm/press - [Cached]

   Published on: 8/8/2007   Last Visited: 11/6/2007

   David Crow, The Business Magazine

3. 3. Live! - Glasgow NUS Referendum: Free and Fair?

   live.cgcu.net/opinion/randomra - [Cached]

   Last Visited: 4/29/2007

   David Crow With a hard-fought and highly charged referendum at Imperial, David Crow asks questions about the fairness of the vote at Glasgow. David Crow, former editor of 'Guardian' at Glasgow
   ...
   David Crow, former editor of 'Guardian' at Glasgow
   
   David Crow is media columnist for The Business and former editor of the Glasgow University Guardian.
   ...
   Ain't happened yet, although David Crow is an exception and frankly I am bored with all this, particular as I have made a decade long commitment to Glasgow, these chaps will not do and can see the long term consequences of such actions.
   
   So David is correct, there is a lack of democracy and there was some coercion to be seen.
   ...
   What a desperate trick by Mr Crow to try and make comparisons with Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
   ...
   If that meets Mr Crow's definition of undemocratic, I wish him well when he moves to Zimbabwe. And were the Yes campaigners really just standing around not talking to people? In that case, it's surprising they got even the low number of votes that were cast for affiliation.
   
   A further hole in Mr Crow's argument is apparent when we remember that there was no imperative for the No camp to secure a high turnout. Had the referendum not met the 15% threshold, the status quo would have prevailed and GU would have remained unaffiliated. That's a different thing from the referendum result being "null and void" as Mr Crow claims: I don't think he understands the procedure involved. Granted, a decisive result such as this will give the No camp the most satisfaction, but even a low turnout would have sufficed, and could have been used by them to show how irrelevant the NUS is to Glasgow students. The people who had a real need for a high turnout were the Yes camp.
   
   I had to laugh at Mr Crow's citing of Guardian's headline as a supposed example of bias. What is the objection to such a factual statement, unless you are embarrassed by actually quantifying the drain it would have been on student funding at Glasgow, or don't think it would have been value for money? (And it actually understates the amount by some £2,500!). At worst, it represents the common newspaper failing of going for a short snappy headline.
   
   For all Guardian is indeed published by the SRC, it has usually managed whenever it wanted in the past to take its own separate line - sometimes vehemently so - from the elected Council or Executive of the SRC. I speak as one who was elected to the SRC in the mid to late '90s, and I'm still an occasional reader of Guardian. Mr Crow gives no evidence of what has changed, or why/how on this particular matter, the current editorial team was somehow obliged to toe the line. I read the issue published prior to the referendum (the one with the headline Mr Crow cites) and as another comment mentions, there was equal space given in that issue for articles by each camp. Indeed, the big picture with the story was the Yes campaign team! Oh, and for the benefit of non-Glasgow types reading this (and perhaps as a reminder to Mr Crow himself), Guardian is only one of the publications financed by the SRC. Are we to assume that the TV, radio and magazine outlets were all under the thumb as well?
   
   I'm sorry to see that a former Guardian editor submits for publication 700 such poorly argued words, a mix of some anecdotal observation, factual inaccuracy and shallow assertion. The attempt to drag in the plight of Zimbabwe as cheap opening and closing lines may be general crassness, or a specific realisation that he wasn't going to win the argument on facts and hence had better rely on a woolly appeal to the emotions - who knows? Either way, I shall not rush to read Mr Crow's current "media column" if this is his typical level.
   
   12. Claire W Nov 20 2006 21:47
   
   I hardly think Mr Crow is suggesting there is any similarity between Mugabe's regime and Glasgow Uni. Rather, he is using it as a reference point to demonstrate the ownership of the press by a strongly anti-NUS organisation and the unusual polling arrangements.
   ...
   Mr Crow's link to Zimbabwe is glib and superficial but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a columnist that doesn't use similar tricks to get readers hooked. He is simply articulating views that were not articulated elsewhere.
   ...
   "Cheap blow Crow.
   ...
   Mr. Crow should know about the university's agenda.
   ...
   Your last post seems to be agreeing with Mr Crow's article.
   ...
   - David Crow
   ...
   It does lend credence to David Crow's timeously put comment, "During my time as editor of the campus's only independent newspaper I found the officials I encountered to be nasty, self-serving and pernicious."
   ...
   As to Mr Crow's comments on the independant newspaper, Guardian.
   ...
   One last thing: although, as my earlier posts make clear, I found Mr Crow's article to be a lot of poorly argued nonsense, I do think it should be read attentively. A couple of people seem to think his remark that " ... the officials I encountered [were] nasty, self-serving and pernicious" refers to people at Glasgow Uni. It doesn't. He was talking about his dealings with NUS officials. On that point, I think he is 100% correct.