April 2005

A strange thing happened a few weeks ago in the opinion pages of The Signal. A commentary I wrote was not printed as a commentary! Instead, and a surprise to me, the piece I wrote appeared as a letter to the editor. This galvanized my suspicion that we no longer have a local newspaper that is relevant and trying to build a readership.
In all fairness, let me give you the brief history of what has happened and why I feel the way I do about The Signal. First, I have been submitting commentaries primarily related to issues concerning the unincorporated west side for some time. The majority of these commentaries have appeared in the Sunday edition of The Signal, which is typically the highest circulation day for most daily newspapers.
Several weeks back, James D. Hicken, CEO of the Bank of Santa Clarita, wrote a guest commentary that was replete with misinformation and turned out to be a baseless personal attach on this community volunteer. Mr. Hicken’s trite commentary appeared in the Sunday edition of this paper and was intended to present an alternate viewpoint on annexation. Instead it was an attack on me personally and partly on what I had written in several previous commentaries.
Generally speaking, I have tried to refrain from responding to such dribble as Mr. Hicken’s ramblings. But I made an exception this time because of the baseless, inaccurate, and false statements that were made. In essence, I wrote a commentary on Hicken’s commentary and on annexation in general.
I submitted that commentary, as I have done with all the previous ones, as an email to the email address that I have always used. I asked that Leon Worden, the editor, to respond that he received my latest “commentary”, as I have always done. He did respond that he “got it”.
Leon Worden, the editor, never indicated that my commentary would become a letter to the editor. That would have been a professional and respectful thing to do since I don’t get paid to write these commentaries. Further, it appeared in the less read Tuesday edition rather than the Sunday edition the attacks appeared in. That in and of itself shows the The Signals editorial staff is proving to be toxic to the pertinence of this local newspaper.
Why then did my commentary appear as a letter to the editor buried in the Tuesday edition? Was it because I was critical of a local business leader? Does the editor or some senior staff members at The Signal have a banking relationship with the Mr. Hicken? Are they shareholders of the Bank of Santa Clarita? Or, was it simply a form of censorship? These were just some of the questions that ran through my mind.Actually, it may be that my commentary was buried as a letter to the editor because the Bank of Santa Clarita is an advertiser in The Signal.
More importantly, it was yet another example of why I believe The Signal has been losing its relevancy in the Santa Clarita Valley. It has changed little in the 25 years that I have been reading it on and off. Sure, it went from a weekly to a daily paper and yes it changed the look of the masthead but there have not been any substantive changes.
The Signal has not kept up with changes and growth here in the Santa Clarita Valley. It is not representing the entire valley but rather a smaller and, let’s face it, bygone version of this valley. Plain and simple, The Signal has not grown in unison with the rest of the Santa Clarita Valley.
It has spotlighted the fact that The Signal is basically on the slippery slope of irrelevance headed towards being nothing but an advertising circular, neither taken seriously nor purchased for any other reason than coupon clipping and yard sale notices.
The Signals readership has been declining in comparison to the tremendous growth that the valley experienced. In fact, there are very few Signal readers in the west side communities in comparison to the population. The truth is that The Signal has covered very little on the west side, which in turn has done nothing long term to build a readership.
Yes, a newspaper is about building a readership through the dissemination of information pertinent to those readers and is supported by advertising. It’s not about pandering to the advertisers at the expense of the readers as has so often been displayed by The Signal.
Unfortunately if nothing is done to correct this situation it will eventually create a need for a real community newspaper and not a glorified advertising circular that The Signal has been turning into. Nature abhors a vacuum and will fill it when one appears. That will be true for The Signal. Sure, there have been some local upstarts attempted in the past that have not gotten traction but that speaks volumes that the need exists.
There was a glimmer of hope at The Signal when the paper got a new publisher and the hope that there would be some major changes. Sadly though, there have not been any major changes that would correct The Signal’s current course and bring the paper towards credibility and relevance. Instead, several key reporters and staffers have left the paper further weakening the integrity of The Signal. That says it all!