Specifically, the Signal seems to be bending, twisting or otherwise making an excuse for a profile published by The Mighty Signal itself in which Pulskamp was “paraphrased - not quoted, please note, but paraphrased” – as saying one of his goals is turning “Santa Clarita’s suburban bedroom sprawl into a legitimate urban center.” This is essentially The Signal saying in no uncertain terms that it didn’t get the quote right; big surprise there!
Far be it for Santa Clarita to have a newspaper that can actually get quotes and information correct. We’d much prefer to go on with the current wad of newsprint, with cover stories about ducks crossing roads, incorrect facts, and misquotes. Right?
We’d all much rather be subjected to a newspaper that appears to be in the back pocket of the City; one that apparently lacks balance and can’t take constructive criticism. Right?
We’d also much rather have to subscribe to larger regional newspapers and go online to local web sites to read news and commentary about some of the issues facing the Santa Clarita Valley. The local issues that are very important and that have TWO sides to them like schools, hospitals and growth.
We sure don’t want a local paper dealing with any of that fairly!
Not to mention a local newspaper that can do in-depth investigative reporting into some of the questionable issues that have cropped up as of late. You know, the Hart School Board, the long overdue Castaic High School, and how about coverage of the entire valley consistently.
No way. Not in Santa Clarita.
And there’s that other thing that a real newspaper has: honest to goodness trusted journalism, where people can go and get the whole story and not just a slated version that has obvious misquotes on a regular basis. You know a newspaper that we can call the watchdog of our Valley.
Nope. We’d rather just have a big and bigger advertising circular that is dulling many of the residents in SCV by sucking up precious time with sometimes apparently dubious local information and stories. All the while, it is driving up reader frustration that somehow we are not getting the entire story or for the glaring mistakes.
That’s it, right? That’s the kind of newspaper we all want?
Sadly, those who prefer such a newspaper seem to have their wish fulfilled each day. It appears that The Signal is unabashedly willing to protect and defend the City of Santa Clarita at all cost; including potentially sacrificing its credibility; what’s left of it that is.
I hope you have enjoyed my little parity of the The Signal editorial titled; “Urban center’? Not in Santa Clarita!” That editorial appears to contradict City Mangers Ken Pulskamp’s letter to the editor the previous week. Ken flat out denied that he ever said that he wanted to turn “Santa Clarita’s suburban bedroom sprawl into a legitimate urban center.” Now, The Signal editorial is saying that it “paraphrased” Ken’s statement.
So, according to my venerable dictionary, “paraphrase” means; “a rephrased, simplified, and usually shorter version of written or spoken material; to restate something using other words, especially in order to make it simpler or shorter.” The City Manager denies that he ever made the statement and The Signal claims that it only “paraphrased” or restated Mr. Pulskamp’s statement in simpler terms. Tell me, who are you suppose to believe?
Sadly, the editorial goes onto to say that we should all be happy with a denser, urban center because that was somehow always part of the plan. The Signal editorial staff and the City Manager are essentially both denying the “urban center” comment and defending it at the same time. They want denser growth which will generate more tax revenue not more “bedroom sprawl” that has little to offer in revenue.
Actually, I like our bedroom community! It is one of the reasons why we are living in the Santa Clarita Valley.
One of our readers said this about the editorial, “…This city was NEVER meant to be an “urban center,” …… The Signal knows they screwed up publishing that about Ken Pulskamp and they are digging their way out by shamefully lying about what residents had in mind for the future of this city. We became a city to PREVENT exactly what The Signal is claiming this city has been meant to be all along.”
There is clearly a disconnect going on in the City of Santa Clarita between what residents seem to want and what the City leadership wants. That gap could be narrowed if the City were willing to engage the residents and allow for some meaningful public participation across the board. The City vision should be representative of what residents want and not of what a few at City Hall prefer.
As for The Signal, it appears that they may have a bit of a credibility issue to deal with again based on the apparent contradictory statements between The Signal “51″, Mr. Pulskamp’s letter to the editor and their recent editorial. What’s the real story, what was actually said and who do you believe? Apparently not The Signal!
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.
Comments
17 · as published