Being supported by the man who actually did it isn't enough? If you remember last year the story broke because Mason and Flores gave a letter to the collegian, that's the same thing. It's still a cover up and they should be ashamed

First of all, after actually reading the article above, "3 in, 1 out after ASI senate meeting," I am sad to hear that Jorge Hernandez has resigned. In my experiences with ASI, that have been mixed over the years, Jorge was the only ASI representative out of the many I contacted last semester that took the time to respond to my questions. His resignation is a loss to the students that actually wanted to get something out ofASI . I can only hope that those replacing him, and the other positions, will take after the superb service Jorge provided to at least me.

Second, I was appalled at the comments left by students about ASI President Graham Wahlberg. I was not originally appalled at the content of the comments, but the fact that The Collegian dropped the ball on this story. A second ASI president caught for underage drinking? The Collegian worked so hard to uncover much of what happened with former ASI President Mackee Mason (much of which I believe The Collegian has not answered because ASI has not yet provided The Collegian with documents they requested at the beginning of last fall semester). Reading comment after comment it seemed odd to me that The Collegian would favor ASI now only after years of being accused of negative coverage of ASI . What a complete 360 The Collegian was doing by not covering this huge story. Where was The Collegian in covering this huge story?

Thanks to a link provided by "WOW, Gatekeeping" to the Fresno Bee article covering this story, I decided to actually read the report - something I recommend everyone actually read. Commenters said that this story in the Bee had "a lot of sources," that it was a "lengthy article" that "interviewed school authorities as well as Mr.Wahlberg ." This article did not have "a lot of sources," in fact, it only had three sources. Of those three only one was quoted, which was Wahlberg. It was not "lengthy" most likely due to the fact that the reporter, Hoagland, had only one real source in Wahlberg . It also did not interview "school authorities," in fact, that article states that the one university source in the story could not comment on the matter. This Bee article tells you nothing. Actually read the article. If you do, you will find out that Wahlberg reported to the Bee that he was accused of an alcohol violation that occurred in late December, making this hardly breaking news and hardly an exposé of Wahlberg since he's the one that reported it. If The Collegian and Wahlberg were such good buddies, don't you think he would've gone to The Collegian first?

While I think The Collegian should look into these claims made by Wahlberg and hopefully report on it in the future, there is no point in regurgitating and plagiarizing what the Fresno Bee reported when the Bee article actually contributes nothing to the claims of underage drinking because no official at the university could confirm any of the details. I'm assuming this is a major reason The Collegian was hesitant regarding some of the comments made on the Web site - there is nothing backing this story up. Seriously, you commenters are asking a little much of a student-run newspaper that gets little support from the MCJ Department. In the Feb. 6 edition of The Collegian, the fact that ASI lost more senators is a more newsworthy story than unsupported claims of underage drinking. If these claims are supported in the future and The Collegian does not report on them, then I think students should be worried about what The Collegian is and isn't reporting. Until then, I recommend you actually read and think before you comment.

And, the Collegian's credibility takes another hit.

How the paper handled this is embarrassing. Weak alibis. Pathetic excuses.

The truth of the matter is, the paper made a big deal out of something last semester, and ultimately forced people to resign. Now, Graham Wahlberg gets caught, and the paper says nothing. Worse yet, the Fresno Bee (which almost never covers this sort of campus news) beats the campus paper on what's probably one of the biggest stories of the semester.

There are legitimate questions about the Collegian's motivation. Was there bias in the reporting last semester? Is there a double standard in covering ASI? If paper staffers are indeed friends/roommates with ASI executives, can they separate that from the newsroom? Or, should they admit they have too many personal entanglements and can't report the story? If that's the case, they could be open about and admit it on the front page?

So.... that doesnt change the fact that the collegian is still covering up for their friends.

After consultation with our online adviser, I've been asked to clarify that we're not legally liable for posters' comments, but for staff comments.

el loco: I did go back through old comments and could not find one that had slipped through. I've since released the moderated comments.

wow: There have been no more staff comments because we've already presented our side.

Cowchilla, the proof is in the pudding, notice there has been no more staff comments, they where caught being biased for their friends. Don't worry, they'll just hope that this blows over, and none of this will ever appear in Web-Speak.

dw must stand for 'damn whites'. every comment posted by this guy or girl assumes the worst out of European-Americans.

and who the hell gives you legal advice? At risk for comments? BS. Go back to the original article about Mackee and Sandra and there are plenty of comments that could be considered "libelous". I feel bad for the trees, you barely deserve one print a month, and you get 3 a week! for what? to reprint news articles i could get from the NYT.

WOW! great job Collegian! Since you monitor your comments so well, why not go back to comments made WEEKS AGO with information on this new scandal. Way to be impartial.

The thing is, the collegian sat a precedent last semester of how they cover ASI, and while there are a few small changes to the staff, most where there last semester. There is no excuse you can make up for getting a tip two weeks ago, and letting the Fresno Bee report it first. Oh, well I guess when you are roomates/close friends with executives, it would make for an awkward weekend.
Explain how not reporting this with the same fervor as a similar story from a few months ago can be anything but selectivity based on a friendship, or worse, race. Perhaps it is easier to make a certain race seem corrupt.

Heather, you didn't answer the question....

The Bee reported on this, with a lengthy article, this week. They interviewed school authorities as well as Mr. Wahlberg. Whether you feel you have enough for a story is immaterial. It's already out there.

The comment I saw was not libelous. However, it suggested the Collegian might not have covered this because of possible friendships between Mr. Wahlberg and members of the paper's staff. That is a valid question. If that makes you uncomfortable, too bloody bad. The Collegian has a stinky enough reputation around campus--"bird cage liner"--that it does not need to give the appearance of favoritism.

As I have posted in comments that continue to be "parked" It is questionable that the collegian is suddenly all about checking the story when it comes to their friends. As you said Brandon, last semester the collegian was all over Mason and Flores, it seemed like everyday there was something about them, now the collegian wants to be coy about digging for the truth. One has to question whether it is about knowing the right people at the Collegian, or if it is strictly about race?
There is nothing I have written that could cause the Collegian to be sued, but it is critical about some questionable lack of coverage that might be because of race, well see if it gets "parked" too...

dw: Potentially libelous comments posted on our site put us at legal risk, which is why we moderate them.

Just because something is published elsewhere doesn't mean our editors necessarily feel they have what they need for a story. Since I'm not involved, I can't say that's what's going on with this story, but it stands as a general rule.

I too, in light of the Bee's reporting on Graham's furnishing alcohol to minors citation, question whether the push to force Mackey Mason to resign was based more upon race and less upon what happened at that retreat.

How would the Collegian "be at risk" about Mr. Wahlberg's issues with beer left in his dorm refrigrator--it was reported in the Fresno Bee this week (in an article that was also posted on the CSU newsclips page)? Brandon, hopefully, Collegian staff does read the competition?

The Collegian never "erases" or "removes" comments they are simply parked or removed from public view until any and all claims are investigated.

Several comments made last semester during the ASI situation involving Mackee Mason and Sandra Flores were parked because they were personally attacked in those comments and Mason had received several comments regarding race which had nothing to do with what any of the articles were about.

There were also comments naming people and publicly announcing information about everyone involved in the ASI situation at that time that could essentially be libelous or defamatory, including remarks made about Mason, Flores, Tremp, and several other members of ASI, administrators, faculty and staff.

The Collegian never intends to defame anyone and does it's best to safeguard against it, and will never post anything publicly without careful consideration and until all facts are examined.

The Collegian will look into those claims made, but yes they were partially parked because of the implied media bias. The Collegian strives for objective and fair reporting and that's why many times comments are parked.

But it was not strictly because of the implied bias either or the fact that the comment was critical of the paper as to why it was parked.

As was mentioned earlier we left the other comment made up and have left several if not many comments critical of the paper up.

It was simply an issue of where the paper could be in legal danger, if any of the mentioned person(s) in the comment wanted to pursue legal action against the paper.

So, until we have further information the comment will remained parked but not deleted. We still have a copy of it saved in case we need it for any legal representation.

You were not singled out because you were critical of the paper -- if we deleted such comments, half of the things people post would not stay up. I would suggest looking at last semester's coverage of ASI if you feel so certain that we cover up for them. If there is a comment still up on a story that says what you say, that is my fault for not monitoring the comments closely enough. I will go back and look for it. Sometimes things slip by me.

#1 Dont say that you erased the comment because it wasn't true, because there is still a comment up from a story two weeks ago that says the exact same thing, so be honest, it stung a little bit to be called out, so you erased it.

#2 You could have a whole issue on the hypocrisy Graham has presented. Graham in the now infamous aritcle 'Ready to Sieze New Semester" Fortunately, ethics, integrity and character have been absent in recent years and my one hope is that our efforts will help the public know that ASI is a business filled with integrity." He said this knowing he was cited! Thats not news? Disgusting.

Brandon, you have no intention of putting that comment out, because you have been called out for covering up for a friend, you say that you’re looking into “recent claims” when the Bee reported it on Friday, and they had a lot of sources, you couldn’t get those? or did the Collegian not want to? Does the collegian have a policy against reporting anything negative on contributing photographers? With your biased reporting, does that the Collegian equivalent to what Fox News was for the Bush Administration? We know a lot of you are close with executives, but don’t let your acquaintances cause you to not report the truth. Where’s the responsibility? You’ll probably erase this too, but it just reeks of how every one is reacting to Phelps like a loveable stoner, while when recent Superbowl MVP was caught and when the NBA rookies where caught they where thugs.

And how is it hearsay when he admitted it? WHAT? Thats just a lame excuse. You got caught.

Since you act like you dont know about it, Ill help you do your research, http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1175055.html

No I asked for the comment to be parked until we can verify the information stated within. The Collegian does not allow potentially libelous or inflammatory information to be posted. As for previous posts we had received information that stated that that information had been true. As for the recent claims made about ASI executives we are looking into it but at this time have no reliable evidence that proves that those claims are true. At this point, everything is hearsay, and we have not yet discovered any evidence indicating otherwise.

The collegian does reserve the right to review post, but will it snuff out resonse that are critical of the paper? It does not censor comments against adminstrators or Illegal immigrants. Be accountable for your obvious lack of coverage to an issue that the Fresno Bee considered newsworthy. Were is the hard hitting news coverage? Where's the responsibility of reporting the facts? Questionable. Respect honest opinion, don't shut it out!

Are you kidding me! The collegian and Graham must be best friends for them not to run the story everybody in Fresno is talking about GRAHAM and UNDERAGE DRINKING!!! You would think after all of their coverage last semester they would be all over this! I wonder why no coverage? Is it because Graham is friends with the staff? Or is it...elephant in the room....race?!?!? Just like Michael Phelps coverage compared to Carmelo Anthony a few years back.

Thats complete and utter rubbish. His involvement is ASI is nearly non-existant -- as we've seen from the lawsuits and scandals. He doesn't control anything except their budget.

question is----Did Welty approve of these individuals? He rules everything in the CSU Fresno kingdom