It used to be that the mighty Signal was the watchdog of the Santa Clarita Valley. It was, in fact, the one venerable local newspaper that that kept a keen eye on local politics and important issues for decades here in our valley. At least that is how I remember what the paper was from nearly thirty years ago when I first arrived in SCV.

According to Beacon columnists John Boston, a.k.a. Mr. SCV, Ed and Blanche Brown formed The Signal on Jan. 1, 1919. The first issue was published in February of 1919.

Then Scott Newhall bought the paper in 1963 and published it for more than a decade. In a complicated business deal the Newhall’s then sold the newspaper to Charles Morris of Savannah, GA, in 1974.

The Newhall’s apparently hung around until 1988. They tried for about 14 years to buy the paper back from Morris to no avail. Scott, his wife Ruth and their son and publisher Tony decided in August of 1988 to start what would be the short-lived Citizen a few blocks up the street.

Since 1988 The Signal has had roughly 12 publishers, acting publishers and/or general managers which seems to have contributed to the paper struggling on a number of fronts. This is evidenced by the apparent knee-jerk reaction to the plagiarism scandal that has rocked the paper in recent weeks.

The Signal’s editorial board published an editorial contrition after a second columnist was flagged for lifting material from another source. In that editorial they claimed that plagiarism “would not be tolerated” and went on to make the following statement:

It is our duty – and we consider it our honor – to air public issues publicly in our opinion pages, to seek ideas and opinions from all sides and publish those ideas and opinions, so that together we can shape a better Santa Clarita Valley. We certainly don’t agree with everything we publish, but it is our honor to publish it.

Once again The Signal made a disingenuous statement that rings hollow purely by their actions.

I would argue that the paper does not play fair when it comes to the opinions pages. They do not pay their regular local columnists a nickel yet pressure them to produce content and once there is a problem, throw them to wolves. Just look at how they have handled their recent plagiarism scandal!

But more than that, my own experience is that they don’t really want your opinion if they don’t agree with it.

Case in point is a commentary I submitted to The Signal back in October on the west side governance vote. I was told by the publisher, Ian Lamont, that “no matter the subject if you can’t say it in 900 words or less (actually 750-800 words, but I will go with 900 here) then the rest is usually not worth reading.”

Those were the guidelines that were laid out for submitting to the paper and I followed them to a fault by submitting a commentary at 880 words; under the 900 words the publisher said he would allow. The submission was made two weeks in advance and there was not one bit of contact or indication that there was any issue with the length of the piece.

The Signal then edited that commentary from 880 down to 780 while publishing its own editorial, an opposite opinion to mine, with more than 1500 words. In the same edition it allowed the Signal editorial “community” board member an additional 1700+ words reinforcing its own editorial.

Gee, didn’t the Publisher himself say; “no matter the subject if you can’t say it in 900 words or less then the rest is usually not worth reading.”

That certainly does not seek “ideas and opinions from all sides and publish those ideas and opinions, so that together we can shape a better Santa Clarita Valley”; instead that is trying to stack the deck in favor of one view over another and attempting to manipulate how our valley is shaped.

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.

The current scandal involving plagiarism at The Signal is a symptom of a greater systemic problem at the paper. Frequent misquotes over the years; inaccurate facts; incomplete information; and the appearance of being in bed with the City have all contributed to a sense by some SCV residents that the paper lacks reliability and trustworthiness.

In the latest Signal Local Opinion Columnists Section, Ian Lamont opines on the differences between the Santa Clarita Valley and Long Beach where he lives! It would have been more useful for the publisher himself to address the recent problems instead of pitching reasons why one should subscribe to the newspaper.

(By the way, in the course of the editorial it praises local education with “some of the finest K-12 schools in the state and, with College of the Canyons, the best community college in California.” But it completely leaves out CalArts, a world renowned institute that has turned out a plethora of luminaries in the performing and visual arts fields. That falls under the “incomplete information” category.)   

How about more honesty and less sweeping the problems under the rug? That would go a long way in reestablishing the credibility of the community paper. Those running the newspaper will have to do a lot more; they will have to go above and beyond over a long period of time to re-establish that credibility.

Instead of throwing unpaid local columnists to the wolves the papers management needs to take a long hard look internally. There is a difference between leaving out an attribution and blatantly plagiarizing another’s work. Such an introspective review, if truly honest, will no doubt yield some useful improvements that may aid the paper in the long-term.

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.