History Repeats Self: Fullerton Observer Soliciting For City Hall Again
A few months ago we went after Sharon Kennedy and her Observer’s shameless pandering to City Hall when she passed along a letter from OC Supervisor Chris Norby opposing Redevelopment expansion to her pals in the government. Some Redevelopment flunky put together the “official” response, Don Bankhead affixed his X to it, and the two were printed side by side.
Well she’s at it again. Check out page 8 of the July edition. Same technique, same result.
Now, we have nothing against the City getting out its propaganda, even if it is full of baloney. But this habit on the part of Kennedy of sharing an editorial writer’s submission so that it can be immediately rebutted without counter response is so unfair that, well, we feel justified in accusing Sharon Kennedy of being just a wee bit biased in the stuff she prints.
Why not print the submission and let the City respond if it feels inclined to do so? Why not let the debate go back and forth – fairly, and see who can develop the more compelling argument? Oh, yeah. That’s right:
13 Replies to “History Repeats Self: Fullerton Observer Soliciting For City Hall Again”
Harpoon, “Why not let the debate go back and forth – fairly, and see who can develop the more compelling argument?” That’s an oxymoron. Since when did “fairness” mean anything to city hall bureaucrats? They get an idea and they run with it like a bat out of hell.
They never present both sides of an issue, their focus is completely one sided (biased), ALL THE TIME.
the one item you wont see in the fullerton observer is “editor” sharon kennedy’s real bio. if she did come clean with the truth you wouldnt point the finger at her but at her ghost writers. come on, sharon, why can’t you post the truth about yourself?
It is annoying when the Observer won’t print my stuff without tipping off City Hall for a rebuttal. That last article I submitted the night before the deadline, so any rebuttal would have to come later. So the article was simply held for 2 weeks to give staff time to respond.
What’s telling is its complete lack of coverage of the $6 million McDonald’s move. Since staff has no credible “other side” the Observer won’t cover it.
Now there’s a huge vacant lot at Pomona & Chapman crying out for a creative use–low cost first-year faculty housing for FHS teachers? Or? Maybe just let the market decide what’s actually viable.
I think the important question to ask here is whether or not RDA was shown Mr. Norby’s column before they were invited to submit their own article. If not, where is the harm in simply inviting both sides to speak to an issue?
Matt, read the post. They took Norby’s article and gave it to the RDA to resond directly to it it point by point! That’s a great way to organize a public debate.
What confused me is that the first set of RDA side by side articles that appeared contained arguments by RDA that were already clearly refuted by the “first” submitted article. If I remember correctly RDA referenced already discredited aspects of the consultant’s report. I guess I just assumed that no one would knowingly cite bad information, and therefore had not seen the first article prior to attempting to refute it.
“I guess I just assumed that no one would knowingly cite bad information”
Ah! A babe in the woods. When it comes to big money people will cite anything!
“we feel justified in accusing Sharon Kennedy of being just a wee bit biased in the stuff she prints.”
Hah! That’s gotta be the understatement of the 21st Century!
BTW, are you implying that Bankhead can’t even sign his own name? Now that’s rude!
Yes, Yellow Sub, very understated. To tell you the truth I’m pretty sure Bankhead can sign his own name, but I thought we’d add that little dig since I’d bet my last dollar and the family farm that he didn’t write a single word of that response to Norby.
By the way, I love that name.
Hate to be pedantic #1, but that’s not an oxymoron. Actually FFFF readers had a good example of an oxymoron the other day. Some cretin named Matthew Cunningham popped up and at one point declared his nom de plume to be an “open secret.”
An oxymoron is the juxtaposition of words with opposite meanings, the classic example being “jumbo shrimp.”
Admittedly, the term is catchy because it sounds so goofy and includes the part “moron.”
P.S. this word has no etymological connection to the “oxytoxin” cooked up Dick Jones.
For Sharon, Fullerton History stopped in 1994, when the pro-tax majority was recalled.
The Observer judges everybody today by how they stood then, or how they think they would have stood had they been here.
#11, that is true. But I don’t think she was even living in Fullerton then. Somebody must have poisoned her well but good.