To the editors of The Signal,

I would like to begin by saying I appreciate the fact that we have student writers that provide the campus with a student run newspaper. Also, congratulations on the seventh place during the ACP 2016 National College Media Convention. However, the latest edition regarding the upcoming election left me more than dissatisfied.

Upon opening this edition, I was expecting to receive information regarding both presidential candidates and their views that would help undecided college voters determine their political views and who they would be voting for on November 8, 2016. Instead, I was greeted with a full page saying “The Signal is with Her!”. Immediately I can already tell that the remainder of this article is going to be very bias toward the Democrat nominee, and provide very little, if any, information about the Republican nominee. Since there has been a campus-wide push for students to register and be involved with the election, this was very inappropriate for the campus newspaper to show their support for a candidate when the campus wants the entire student body informed.

Continuing with my read, page 4 and 5 had an article titled “Presidential Candidate Summary.” Despite the opening article, I was expecting this to be fairer toward both candidates since it was, in fact, a summary.  Instead I was greeted with a Clinton heavy article. Information on Hillary dominated the article by having an extra fifteen to twenty lines than her opponent Donald Trump. Included in the extra lines were interviews from students bashing Trump. Lines about Trump had no such comments regarding Hillary. This article also presented the comparisons on the two candidates on topics that are not, and should not be, primary issues with the election such as Campus Sexual Assault, Gender, and Race. All play a role in this election, due to the media, but are not major concerns voters should be basing their vote on. Instead, topics involving taxes, ISIS, choosing the Supreme Court Justice, and the economy should have been included since they are some of the more important concerns this election has.

The propositions are something many voters are unaware of, and receive very little information on. With this article, I was hoping to have more information on the propositions because many can be complicated and confusing. Arguments of why I should vote yes or no on a proposition would have been very helpful because many propositions have hidden factors of where money goes, or tax increases. If space is an issue with providing this information, a URL, https://ballotpedia.org/California_2016_ballot_propositions, of where to read more would have been a great service to provide to students.

More Hillary support, and Trump bashing, became prevalent in the illustration section. While I found the “Trumpty Dumpty” comic quite funny, I would have appreciated one regarding Hillary as well.

As the bias toward Hillary continued, I turned the page and found “#CelebritiesAreWithHer”; an article dedicated to further giving readers more Hillary support by showing readers celebrities also support her. To no surprise there is nothing regarding the celebrity support of Trump. Personally I feel celebrity support is irrelevant and that space could have been put to much better use by furthering the explanation of the propositions.

The final article left me shaking my head. In this article, there was a clear bias that had incorrect information, as well as an article that was extremely “politically correct” that frustrated several other readers, democrats included. The article says trump “has been calling all Mexicans ‘criminals’ and ‘rapists’”, which left leaning politifact has declared false. It continues to say “The Latino community has been outraged that a person like Trump, who is running to be President of the United States, has promised that if he gets elected, he will be in charge of deporting about 11 million undocumented immigrants. He also promised to build a wall which will explicitly divide Mexico and the US”. As President, it would indeed be his job to deport the illegal immigrants since they are, in fact, illegal. Also, there already is a border wall existing in Arizona voted for by Hillary Clinton during her time in Congress, so the outrage for Trump should also be directed to Hillary. The fact that Trump continues to call “undocumented immigrants ‘criminals’” should be something written with negative connotation because it is true. According to definitions.uslegal.com, as well as common knowledge, “An illegal immigrant is a person who has entered the country without official authorization”. The article sites Trumps “irony” by calling Trump a criminal for not paying taxes, however he found a legal loophole to prevent him from having to pay taxes for eighteen years, thus he is not a criminal. The real irony is that the article is upset that Trump calls illegal immigrants criminals for coming here illegally, yet calls Trump a criminal for doing something that was legal. Another aspect that resulted in a “face palm” was “…but still Mexican immigrants are being called ‘criminals’ for entering the U.S. (a land that was previously theirs) as undocumented looking for a better future?”. The argument that this was once Mexico’s land is overused and very weak. Mexico lost the land, it is no longer theirs. If I were to lose my house, I could not just go back a later time because it was once mine. That would be breaking and entering, a criminal offense. The article also mentions that these illegal immigrants pay taxes, which means nothing to the fact that they are still illegally in the country. To answer the question “So again, how are Mexican immigrants the ‘criminals’ when they are the ones contributing to our economy and on the other hand our country’s Republican presidential nominee has not been doing so for the past years?”, the illegal immigrants came to the United States illegally, despite their contributions, thus making them a criminal. If I were to break into someone’s house and clean it (contributing), I would still be committing the crime breaking and entering, thus making me a criminal. Donald trump contributes to the economy in major ways through his businesses, properties, etc. Not paying taxes does not mean he does not contribute, and he did so in a legal manner. The interview of the Stanislaus student left me in shock. I cannot believe that someone can openly say their parents are here illegally, have it published, and not seem to worry about any possible repercussions. In the excerpts of the interview, much of it was incorrect information. For example saying Trump is not doing his civic duties, calling Trump a criminal (which I have explained why he is not), and saying Trump wants to “prove his point that minorities are and should not be here”. I understand that an interview is not always going to be factual because not all people are informed, but the writer should omit the information that is not correct, which in this case is most of it. The reasons why people come here illegally are clear, but to inform the public that it is okay and they should not be declared criminals is not right.

The lack of anything conservative in this edition was really upsetting to me and others, especially since this issue was intended to help students with their election decisions. I understand The Signal’s political views, however there should be a less bias approach in peer media since there is no major political funding toward the newspaper and students should be able to trust their campus to provide them information on both candidates and allow them to make their decisions themselves. I was also informed that much of the information comes from politifact, which is known to be left leaning. It would be beneficial to use both liberal and conservative sources in order to help balance the bias and give the students the best ability to make their choices about the election. I do thank you for taking the time to listen to student voices about their opinions on the newspaper.

Respectfully,

Alex Senior

                              ** I have attached sources below**
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/mexican-wall-already-here
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-falsely-says-trump-said-all-mexicans-are/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/06/mexico-already-has-a-giant-wall-and-a-mining-company-helped-to-build-it/
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-claims-the-new-york-times-illegally-published-his-taxes-we-investigate-if-thats-true/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/02/the-new-york-times-risked-legal-trouble-to-publish-donald-trumps-tax-return/
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-avoid-taxes-law-794c8f3eeb27#.hxcw3ippj
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/illegal-immigrant/
http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration-is-a-crime
http://www.politifactbias.com/p/about-politifact-bias.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/PolitiFact-Fact-Checkers-Bias/2015/03/20/id/631565/