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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.