We Get Mail. Double Standards: The Fullerton Observer’s Selective Criticism
The following missive was discovered in the FFFF In Box this morning. It may seem gratuitous to point out the hypocrisy of the Fuller Observer and the two Kennedy sisters who run it, but it good to seem others cotton on to the complete lack of journalistic ethics involved there.
In the realm of local journalism, consistency and fairness are paramount. Unfortunately, the Fullerton Observer, a poseur “newspaper” in Fullerton, has shown a glaring inconsistency in its coverage of recent development projects in the city – projects that ironically happen to be adjacent. This selective criticism proves the paper’s lack of objectivity and its fundamental inability to hold local government accountable.
A few years ago, the City of Fullerton entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with an individual who, remarkably, had no prior experience in the type of development planned – a “boutique” hotel. This agreement granted him exclusive rights to develop a 2-acre parcel of city-owned land adjacent to the train station. Despite the lack of experience and the complete lack of market demand for the proposed hotel, the Fullerton Observer remained silent. There was no critical analysis, no questioning of the city’s decision to entrust such a significant project to an inexperienced developer. The paper seemed content to report the facts without delving into the potential risks and implications for the city and its residents.
When the project was passed on to two individuals with a record of fraud and loan default, the Fullerton Observer ignored the glaring problem – even as the City prepared to up-zone the land and hand over title to the land before a development agreement was even reached. The project is now in limbo as all of the required milestones have been missed – but the land belongs to the conmen. Silence from the Observer
Fast forward to the present, and we see a stark contrast in the Fullerton Observer’s supposed civic concern. Currently, the Observer has stirred up opposition to a lease amendment at the citiy’s adjacent property, a historic train station listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The city is considering whether to include in the lease the area of only 1000 sq. ft. of its extended portion of it’s “loading dock” that’s been fenced off for nearly thirty five years with no access other than through the current tenant’s leasehold. The tenant of the station has made substantial improvements to the train station building, and has twenty two years remaining on its current lease if he exercises extension rights. However, the Observer has been highly critical of this proposed lease amendment, questioning the results of the City’s staff’s negotiations with the tenant.
The discrepancy in the Observer’s coverages is vivid. Why was there no scrutiny when an inexperienced developer made an unsolicited proposal and was given an exclusive agreement for a high-profile project? Why no scrutiny or criticism of how the deal and the land were handed over to a couple of con artists? Why is there such intense criticism now when a tenant with a proven track record is involved; a tenant who is incentivized to build out the loading dock into a tax-paying space; a tenant who is willing to double his monthly rent to the City? This double standard demonstrates that the Observer’s editorial stance is influenced by factors other than journalistic integrity.
It is crucial for local newspapers to maintain a consistent and critical stance when reporting on city developments. They have a responsibility to question decisions that may not be in the best interest of the community and to hold city officials accountable for their actions. The Fullerton Observer’s selective criticism undermines its credibility and raises concerns about its commitment to fair and unbiased reporting.
As residents of Fullerton, we deserve a real newspaper that provides balanced, critical, and thorough coverage of all development projects. It is time for the Fullerton Observer to reassess its editorial practices and ensure that its reporting is consistent, fair, and in the best interest of the community.
– A Friend of Fullerton’s Future
Good summation. Siskia and Sharon Kennedy engage in personal vendettas. I know first hand. Just like ol’ dad.
I’m sure The Observer will print your letter too.
LMAO
Saskia Kennedy is a very vindictive person. Her obvious bias against the Bushalas and Jung is destroying the credibility of the Fullerton Observer.
Kennedy is evil. Socialist. Bat shit crazy.
Like sister, like sister.
LOL. Who wrote this? Was this David Zenger? Jack Dean? Jose? Maybe it was George?
This is called a whataboutism and it’s a deceptive way to deflect and ignore facts. The lease proposal is awful and it should be rejected
Whataboutism? No it’s about the hypocrisy of the Fullerton Obser Sisters and their stable of fine young political tools.
No it’s whataboutism. Look it up if you don’t know what it is
The lease is extremely beneficial. BTW, what to you think about the horrible mess with the “boutique hotel?” Dying to know.
I like how your response to an accusation of whataboutism was to respond with another whataboutism LOL.
“Please, don’t look over here. I know it’s on the agenda for tomorrow but let’s talk about this other thing. Please. Come on Fullerton”
Wah wah. Fullerton Boohoo cries.
I think it’s very telling that this paper has to hide behind anonymous names when they publish, while the Observer uses their real names on every article.
This isn’t a “paper” and we don’t pretend to be.
Bullshit!
No one pays any attention to that loud mouth meeting interrupter and her little sister except about a dozen or so blue haired old loons. Her opinions about the things that happen in this city are about as relevant as Fitzgeralds empty dirt coke can under the dais.
You would learn more from an issue of Mad Magazine than you would from the output of these two deplorable.
It’s a shame that this piece of trash is allowed to wear the name of this city.
Hey everybody look! The blog that makes fun of private Fullerton residents has something to say about ethics. Let’s all listen closely
Signed “A Friend For Fullerton’s Future” (Bushala) hahaha
You guys are so silly. Who actually falls for this?
I don’t understand the backlash to our posts lately. What do you mean you guys don’t like cronyism?
They’ll all be gone by tomorrow night as the two hermit crabs crawl back into their shell.
They will all scatter after tomorrow because they are all short termers. This is just the latest thing that has their attention because they don’t have anything else. Their pretend outrage over this lease is amusing. Retirees and paid campaign operatives have this as a target now, but Thursday it will be charter cities or the trail or something else that the Observer and Zahra give them direction to oppose.
Sharon Kennedy and Zahra told them this was a shiny object. But Trout is pulling the strings.