By George P. Hassett

Bob Trane may sue The Somerville Journal for what his lawyer says was a “scurrilous” cartoon the paper ran five days before tomorrow’s hotly contested state rep. election.
In a release from his campaign, Trane said the cartoon – which insinuated that he stole his opponent’s nomination papers – combined with the wrong placement of an ad he bought, was a specific attempt to hurt his chances against incumbent State Rep. Carl Sciortino. In the same issue, the Journal endorsed Sciortino.

John Harrington, Trane’s lawyer said, “The Somerville Journal has defamed Mr. Trane, a current Somerville Alderman, by implying that he committed a crime and the result is that Mr. Trane’s candidacy has been irretrievably injured, and further, Mr. Trane’s personal reputation is held by the Somerville Journal to scorn, hatred, ridicule and contempt in the minds of the community. The publication of the scurrilous cartoon has obviously damaged Mr. Trane’s reputation. Given that there is not one scintilla of evidence connecting Mr. Trane to the disappearance of Mr. Sciortino’s nomination papers there can be no conclusion other than the Somerville Journal intentionally and with malice maligned Mr. Trane. We will vigorously pursue all legal remedies available to Mr. Trane.”

The cartoon’s text read, “Trane is alleged to have stolen Sciortino’s nomination papers.” “Trane” had a thin, single line drawn through it and “Someone” was written overhead.

In court documents, Sciortino said he discovered his nomination papers were missing May 6 and he reported them stolen to the State Police 13 days later on May 19. Before last week’s cartoon, no one had publicly linked Trane to the alleged theft.

In an interview with The Somerville News, Journal Editor-in-Chief Greg Reibman said the cartoon was the sole opinion of its creator, David Omar White, and did not represent the view of the paper.

“The cartoon is the opinion of the cartoonist,” he said. Nowhere on the Journal’s opinion page, however, does it differentiate between the views of the paper and the personal opinions of columnists and cartoonists.

Reibman said the omission of Trane’s prepaid advertisement, which had run the previous two weeks without incident, was an honest mistake.

“We made a mistake in the printing department and booked the ad for the Cambridge Chronicle,” Reibman said. The ad ran in the Chronicle, outside the district, and the Medford Transcript. The paper will refund the Trane campaign for the one ad that was not published in Somerville, Reibman said.
The Trane campaign paid the Community Newspaper Group, which owns the Journal and the Transcript, $23,391.75 for the series of full-page ads, according to campaign finance records. Reibman could not immediately say how much will be returned.

One person who is not upset by the controversy is White, an 81-year-old Highland Avenue resident, who said he was “slightly amused” by Trane’s reaction to his cartoon. “I’m flattered actually. To get that kind of anger is rare,” he said.

The Trane campaign, apparently, is not laughing along with White.

‚ÄúFor the Somerville Journal to have allowed the publication of a cartoon, just days before the vote, that connects Mr. Trane to the actions of a disgraced public official, is both outrageous and unfair,‚Äù a release from the Trane campaign said. ‚ÄúTo have also deliberately done so in it’s last edition before the primary, thereby denying Mr. Trane the opportunity to confront and refute this scurrilous lie in the same pages where it appears, is journalism at its very worst and most despicable.‚Äù