RALEIGH — A panel from the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Journalism and Mass Communication has criticized harshly UNC-TV for a “breakdown in the editorial process” that led to “an unbalanced and slanted view” in a series of stories on Alcoa and the state’s efforts to take over four of the company’s hydroelectric dams.

UNC-TV General Manager Tom Howe decided to postpone release of the report “to allow time for a full review of the broader situation.”

The panel’s report came to light as a result of a public records request by Alcoa’s lawyers to the UNC-CH journalism school. It is not clear when the postponed report would have been released if the public information request had not been made.

The panel was appointed, at Howe’s request, by Dr. Jean Folkerts, dean of the journalism school. It was made up of professors Leroy Towns, former Sunday editor of the Topeka (Kans.) Capitol-Journal; Andy Bechtel, a former editor at the News & Observer and the Greensboro News & Record; and Jim Hefner, former vice president and general manager of WRAL-TV. Howe said in his request that he wanted to know what the panel’s “collective opinion” was on whether the reports met “universally accepted standards of journalism.”

“Simply put, our answer is a collective no,” the panel concluded.

The three stories, totaling 35 minutes, aired July 6-8 on UNC-TV’s weeknight newsmagazine program “North Carolina Now.” They concerned the controversial attempt by the Perdue administration and members of the General Assembly to take over four central North Carolina dams owned and operated by Alcoa Power Generating Inc. Two of the reports aired with disclaimers stating that they had not undergone the normal editorial review.

(To read Carolina Journal’s full coverage of the Alcoa dispute, click here.)

The panel determined there was a “breakdown in the editorial process at UNC-TV” when it chose to let legislative reporter Eszter Vajda edit her own work without supervision and broadcast “a series of stories proffering an apparent point of view unsupported by the facts.”

On July 13, according to a statement (PDF) issued on Aug. 3 by the public television station, Howe “postponed the critique to allow time for a full review of the broader situation.”

The rush to air

The stories examined Alcoa’s attempts to gain renewal of a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission so that it could continue operating the dams and selling the power they produce. In late June, as short session was winding down, state Sen. Fletcher Hartsell, R-Cabarrus, sent a letter to UNC-TV — an agency of the executive branch of state government — demanding that it surrender all materials related to its Alcoa reporting. Hartsell had introduced legislation establishing a Yadkin River Trust that would have the authority to acquire the hydropower plants if Alcoa’s license were not renewed.

The Senate Judiciary II Committee, which Hartsell chairs, also subpoenaed Vajda, ordering her to turn over her Alcoa materials.

Vajda and the station complied. July 6, the committee aired a 56-minute version of the Alcoa stories that Vajda produced on her own for Hartsell and the committee. A modified version of Hartsell’s legislation, now called the Uwharrie Regional Resources Commission, passed both houses of the General Assembly in the final 12 hours of the short session.

A Charlotte Observer editorial, praising UNC-TV’s coverage of the Alcoa story, said “it’s also possible that those reports … shook the House out of its indifference and led to passage of the Uwharrie commission.”

July 9, Howe asked UNC-Chapel Hill School of Journalism and Mass Communication Dean Jean Folkerts to produce an independent critique of the Alcoa segments. That same day, Alcoa made a public records request to UNC-TV for its Alcoa files. The company also asked the journalism school for a copy of the report. (Alcoa provided the report to Carolina Journal.)

In it, Towns, Bechtel, and Hefner concluded the decision to “abdicat[e] editorial control … and the resulting broadcast of theses stories — not only tarnished … UNC-TV, but, more importantly, presented an unbalanced and slanted view of this important public issue.” (Download a PDF of the review here.)

The professors found “three holes presented by the series.” The first two dealt with the failure of reporter Eszter Vajda to interview on camera federal and state environmental officials who could say whether the government supported renewal of the license. The final one noted that “the reporter [Vajda] depends a great deal on a lawyer representing hundreds of Alcoa employees. … Has Alcoa been found negligent in any of the suits [cited in the series]? Why was this information not included one way or another?”

“Were the accusations of environmental irresponsibility a product of the state’s interest in retaking the four hydroelectric dams in question, or were these accusations a convenient tactic considering the apparent interests of the state … ?” the report continued. “If the state was so concerned about environmental problems along the Yadkin, why had it not been addressing those concerns for years?”

Finally, the review chastised station managers for caving to legislative pressure and airing stories that were not ready for broadcast. The report said that the station apparently “was accused by some powerful legislators of attempting to manage the story in question; to slant the story from the perspective of Alcoa; or kill the story, outright.”

In its statement, UNC-TV said delaying the stories “would have prevented these ‘North Carolina Now’ reports from airing in a timely way and precluded the public from having immediate access to the information, provoking additional allegations that UNC-TV was suppressing the story.”

UNC-TV did not respond to a question asking when the station had intended to release the report.

Rick Henderson is managing editor of Carolina Journal.