Setting the Record Straight


With election day rapidly approaching, the rhetoric on social media has heated up. Irvine Watchdog has received our fair share of complaints and we’d like to address some of the issues. The great news is people are paying attention and for that we are thankful.

Criticism #1: 

  • You misquoted John Park (and hence the voter-guide is inaccurate).

Irvine Watchdog held a forum where the candidates were asked, “Do you think Irvine should remain a Sanctuary City?” John Park answered “Yes”. (View time 44:40 on livestream)

However, when the OC Register asked, “What do you think of SB54?” Park answered, “I was against SB54 and I would be against any move to make my city a sanctuary city.”

Mr. Park’s stance on SB54 flipped. Accordingly, our Voter Guide has been updated to reflect “Yes and No” because he provided both answers.

We are careful to provide evidence-based information but if there is something you find that needs correcting, please feel free to email us at [email protected] and will be happy to update accordingly.

Criticism #2:

  • “Why doesn’t Irvine Watchdog expose the link between Larry Agran and the Pope/Woods/McGill slate?”

Correction 11/3/18:

* We’ve been commenting on how the big donors are dominating the election spending and reporting on the high volume of PAC money versus the individual filing activity for the candidates. Four members of the Agran Family have made monetary contributions to the Pope campaign in addition to Ed himself.  However, upon looking at the Independent Expenditures there were no donations made by political action committees (PACs) that supported the “No on B” team.
If you come across an interesting disclosure on campaign spending please share it with us and the voters. Or if you would like to submit an Op-Ed or have evidence you’d like to bring to light, please review our guidelines and send it to us here.

Criticism #3:

  • “Why don’t you research or report on X?”

Often people will accuse of of bias because we’re not writing articles on any number of topics. We have been asked, “can you investigate ___” or “why don’t you report on ___”. Please keep in mind we are a group of non-partisan, volunteer Irvine residents. We have families, jobs, and responsibilities beyond Irvine Watchdog. As such, we are limited in the amount of time we can spend researching data and topics. We would welcome and appreciate contributions from others.  

Irvine Watchdog is a platform for you. We ask for your partnership in helping keep tabs on our city. If you would like to submit an Op-Ed or have evidence you’d like to bring to light, please review our guidelines and send it to us here.

Criticism #4:

  • Irvine Watchdog seems biased.

Irvine Watchdog arose because of the dark money flooding into local elections and the recognition that residents do not have an organized or collective way to voice their concerns over our city’s issues. If we appear biased, it’s because we are. We are biased against the major developers and special interests currently controlling our local government. The developers run a business that seeks profits. Our city council should be a representative entity that places needed checks against our city’s business interests. We currently do not have that balance. For information on how much money the developers have spent on our Irvine elections thus far read here

We have volunteers from the entire political spectrum, old and new residents, homeowners and renters, retirees and young adults, and each of our perspectives is unique. Individually, we hold differing points of view, styles of writing and interests, but we are united about one thing: we care about Irvine and want to make sure our local government represents us

Criticism #5:

  • You’re always complaining about the same people.

We believe in holding accountable any elected official, commissioner, or candidate who takes away from transparency or misleads/lies to the voters. Some hold integrity and honesty in higher regard than others.


The next time you come across something on our site you’re not sure about, please consider the following. Before attacking our credibility, we ask you provide us with evidence where we were wrong or ways that we can improve, and we will be happy to make corrections or updates as necessary.

We are a group of residents who saw a need and responded with our best efforts, but have much learning and adjusting to do. So, please bear with us as we figure out how to make our site even more transparent. Constructive criticism is welcome! Or better yet, join us!