The waters are getting murkier in the case of the state of North Carolina attempting to seize control of the dams on the Yadkin River, where an unedited news story now includes a payout of $3,000 to Martin Sansone, who was a researcher who gave correspondent Eszter Vajda of UNC-TV, video which was used to portray Alcoa in a negative light, in an attempt to sway public opinion in the direction of a state takeover.
Alcoa is seeking to renew licenses to run four hydroelectric dams on the Yadkin, which is the center of the growing controversy.
North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue, Commerce Secretary Keith Crisco, and the usual host of environmental groups are fighting to keep Alcoa from continuing to operate the dams, which requires a federal license.
The latest twist in the saga reveals former House Speaker Richard Morgan, who works for the N.C. Water Rights Committee, paying Sansone $3,000.
Morgan's stated reasoning for the payout was this: "They both met with me and others and essentially pitched us for subsistence so he could stay here. He couldn't afford to stay otherwise."
So to help the poor Brit stay in the country, the representative of an anti-Alcoa group paid him $3,000, who just happened to be a friend of the correspondent Eszter Vajda, who was using his dubious research to trash Alcoa.
The money was reportedly used to bring Sansone, who had been in Europe, back to the U.S. to work with Vajda on the Alcoa story.
No matter how you look at it, this is highly suspicious, as the implication is there would have been no unedited version of the slanted report on Alcoa if Sansone hadn't been given the money to return and give his video and report to Vajda.
When saying unedited, it's meant describe the vetting process, and not whether there was some technical editing, which while done, was only to present the side of the story wanted to be seen by the producers of the content.
Morgan even admits Vajda and Sansone approached him and some members of the N.C. Water Rights Committee for funds.
When queried on whether this met the "universally accepted standards of journalism," a UNC School of Journalism and Mass Communication panel blasted the stories as missing the mark.
No comments:
Post a Comment