CornucopiaFlag.jpgSeveral weeks ago The Beacon covered, and in the second instance was first to report, the plagiarism scandal that has rocked The Signal. In one of my commentaries regarding that scandal I wrote; “That’s just another example that seems to reinforce the local chatter that The Signal is in the pocket of the City of Santa Clarita and why the papers credibility appears to have run amok in recent years.” Which begs the question, is there any truth to that chatter?

I decided many months ago to answer that question and started out by accumulating documentation that would yield information one way or the other. In other words, I set out to investigate whether or not there were relationships between the City of Santa Clarita and The Signal that would show a bias favoring the City.

Let’s face it, there have been many people in the Santa Clarita Valley that have observed or have their own stories that point to a view that The Signal is favoring coverage and opinions towards the City. Certainly I have my own stories in which attempts have been made to silence or edit my own voice. But that can be considered hearsay or biased in its own right. We need facts!

So let’s start out by looking at The Signal’s editorial board which is made up of Ian Lamont, publisher; Lila Littlejohn, editor; Josh Premako, opinion editor; and Leon Worden, community board member. Here is what I know about each; Ian Lamont lives in Long Beach is has been publisher of The Signal for a little over a year; Lila Littlejohn apparently has taught English at COC but does not seem to be as well versed on local issues as you would expect of an editor; Josh Premako has been a good writer at the paper and is a photographer; Leon Worden is a former employee of The Signal and is now the CEO of SCVTV and may have the most local knowledge of anyone on The Signal editorial board.

What strikes me most about the make up of The Signal’s editorial board is that with the exception of Leon Worden there is a shallow depth of local knowledge. Leon is well versed on the local history here in the Santa Clarita Valley and has been visibly involved for many years so he can certainly shoulder more when it comes to Signal editorials on local issues.

The problem with this is that aside from being the “community” board member, Leon is also the CEO of SCVTV which derives a significant amount of funding from the City of Santa Clarita. In fact, SCVTV has a Public Television Management Services Agreement with the City of Santa Clarita which was signed in January of 2009 and provided $25,000 in compensation through June 30, 2009. That agreement was then amended in July, 2009, with an additional $50,000 with the term being extended to June 30, 2010. That is a total of $75,000 plus additional money for other costs!

Mr. Worden also is the editor and publisher of the Old Town Newhall Gazette which also derives funding from the City of Santa Clarita. That agreement calls for the City to pay $20,000 per fiscal year for originally 4 issues, now 6, of The Gazette. And it should also be noted that The Gazette is printed by The Signal; in essence the City is helping to fund The Gazette and is a revenue source to The Signal.

In researching the relationship between the City of Santa Clarita and local media outlets like The Signal, SCVTV and The Gazette it became evident that there are some very chummy relationships. One email The Beacon obtained is from a City Staffer to Leon Worden which started out by saying “Hey Buddy” while others that were reviewed appeared quite friendly indeed.

So the questioned must be posed; how can the editorial board at The Signal be unbiased and truly represent the best interests of the community if it and/or members of the board have a financial relationship with the City of Santa Clarita? Answer: It can’t be! The old adage “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” comes into play.

This has been proved out over the years with how important local issues have been covered or in some cases not covered. Most recently the west side annexation vote editorials were about as biased as they come in siding with the City with virtually no attempt at bringing fairness to other opinions. It did so by limiting and editing opposing opinions and did not hold itself to the same guidelines it required of others in the community.

Yet The Signal editorial board claims; “We will take other necessary actions to ensure we offer our readers an honest, fair exchange of ideas on our opinion pages every day.” I don’t believe the paper can actually do that when it’s only knowledge member of local issues derives a portion of his income from the City and the paper benefits financially as well from the City.

The solution of course is a code of ethics and guidelines for the Signal editorial board. But in order for that to work the paper would actually have to be held accountable just like they are doing of the local columnists.

The code of ethics would require full disclosure of any financial, business and/or family relationship involving the subject matter being written about. Mr. Worden’s and the editorial board’s ardent support of annexation and other issues that the City leadership wanted in their favor would have been viewed differently had the public be aware of financial arrangements between those parties.

A set of guidelines would create a level playing field for all opinions and would hold the editorial board to the same requirements being placed on the public contributors to the opinion pages. If a contributor is held to an 800 word count than the editorial board should be as well and not be allowed 1500 or 1700 words. That is not fair nor is it keeping with the “fair exchange of ideas” that paper is attempting to promote, instead it is quite hypocritical.

So, is The Signal in the pocket of the City? I believe they are based on the facts and on the way the paper has conducted itself in recent months. Having looked at City of Santa Clarita checks written out for tens of thousands of dollars to Leon Worden’s SCVTV and emails detailing the various business relationships certainly leads me to that conclusion.   

What that ultimately means is that whatever the paper says or who ever they endorse is suspect; it is questionable as to whether it is be motivated by financial or some  business arrangement. I have no doubt that these conflicts of interest will probably factor in to endorsements of candidates for the upcoming City Council elections in April.

There is and will be a cloud of suspicion over the paper as long as there are these types of dealings and ethical questions being raised. Having rules and following them are two separate ideas. The Signal must walk the walk and talk the talk especially it wants the readers to trust the paper at all again.

But hey, what do I know, I’m just a guy with a computer!

Dave Bossert- Commentary

Dave Bossert is a community volunteer who serves on a number of boards and councils. His commentaries represent his own opinions and not necessarily the views of any organization he may be affiliated with or those of the West Ranch Beacon.