The Fullerton Observer Does It Again

Here’s a painful pill for those Yellowing Observers who offer up their criticisms about the accuracy of our blog.

Today the tattered Fullerton Observer released its Mid March bird cage liner with a front page story on the 4th district Supervisorial race. The story inexplicably claimed that candidates Harry Sidhu, Rose Espinosa and Richard Faher had dropped out of the race. Ay, caramba! Not even close! Jebus, how did that happen?

Actually, when you come to think about it, the screw up is not all that unusual for the Observer where news, editorial, and incompetency are often shot through Sharon Kennedy’s particle accelerator in opposite directions.

Anyway, the Observer elves got hard at work right away making the fix, albeit on-line:

Good Lord. And Sharon Kennedy says we are widely discredited. Hoo boy!

It should be pointed out that the Friends here at FFFF have published 721 blog posts in the last 18 months; and had my bloggers coughed up any thing this errant I would have introduced corporal punishment into our editorial board meetings.

9 Replies to “The Fullerton Observer Does It Again”

  1. Sharon Kennedy, incompetence personified.

    Since the Observer hasn’t really been a newspaper for years I suppose I put this in the same category as those “newspapers” at the grocery checkout. You know, “Michael Jackson sleeps with Alien” headlines.

    Does this surprise anyone? Not me.

  2. Actually they got 3 out of six wrong. That’s a 50% error which, for the Observer, isn’t really all that bad.

    Of course if you think about the Invisible Man Sidhu they can get a partial pass on that. I mean the guy is no where to be seen, right? So now they’re up to a D+.

    The idea of corporal punishment in the editorial board room is a bit alarming.

    Say where is that room, anyhow?

  3. I am guessing that the reporter misunderstood the candidate filing log from the OC ROV. If you check it at you will see that the three candidates the Observer reports as remaining in the race all have a date listed for nominating papers having been filed, while those erroroneously reported to have dropped out have no such dates listed. All but Daly, who did leave the race, have declarations of candidacy dates listed.

    If I am not mistaken, signatures gathered in leui of filing fees are automatically applied to nominating papers, making the issuance of these papers redundant if enough signatures have already been filed in leui of fees. No separate date is listed in these cases. Always good to check with a campaign first before declaring it over.

  4. I am disappointed. I’m disappointed that the Observer is taken seriously by several residents.

    With the FO heir stories tend to attribute what they think as bad as being the results of the “ULTRA RIGHT WING” or it’s a feel good story. At least with FFFF you know exactly where they stand and they give you a forum to challenge their thinking.

    Those issues aside, the thing I hate most about the “paper” is that few stories give the author’s name, not even a pseudonym! That is frustrating.

    And another thing… (shouldn’t have got me started)
    The author of the Mid October 2009 story on “FFF” claims that the RDA expansion will bring in $533,000,000 “to the city to fund improvements to uplift neglected areas of town over the life of the plan.” How much will it cost taxpayers to condemn the properties? How much will certain developers make off the deal and how much will they kick back to city staff and/or council? How much general fund revenue will the city loose? In the end, this will COST us millions of dollars and the general fund will suffer along with our aging infrastructure throughout the city!

    1. Greg, Sharon Kennedy knows as little about Redevelopment and tax-increment financing as she does anything else – which is to say about as much as a ling cod (silent tribute to the Harpoon).

      She was simply regurgitating the crap city staff was peddling to the idiot Jones (we need the money!).

  5. Self-proclaimed journalism expert Davis Barber showed up at the council meeting two weeks ago during a discussion on newspaper clippings.

    His purpose was to knock the credibility of new media, blogs, etc. In his speech, Barber lifted up the Observer as a shining example of credibility in journalism.

  6. Gee whiz! stop with the hatorade towards editor/artist Sharon Kennedy. Sharon intentionally screwed up the facts so her reading public would be more intrigued by the upcoming local election. The FFFF could learn much about journalism from Sharon Kennedy. And anyone who disagrees with me will be bitch-slapped (not).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *