Buncombe County commissioner Carol Peterson speaks to Drama Queen about the diesel-fueled Woodfin power plant planned for western NC.
In the video, Peterson seems to contradict fellow commissioner Nathan Ramsey's earlier statement that commissioners had been holding secret meetings with Progress Energy. Peterson also gets crossed up on the need for the new plant.
The Woodfin process gave less consideration to alternative energy proposals than a lot of folks would have liked. Someone should ask Heath Shuler how a diesel plant jibes with his professed interest in "end[ing] our reliance on fossil fuels" and "expanding alternative energy programs."


Kudos to Drama Queen for this excellent piece of citizen journalism. When the commissioner in question called and asked that the video be taken down, DQ properly said she's be happy to correct any inaccuracies.
Too bad the so-called liberal media watchdogs in Asheville can't manage to awaken long enough to do their jobs.
Posted by: Anglico | Mar 29, 2007 at 08:44 AM
Too right!
Drama Queen is a bright star of NC citizen journalism, and Carol Peterson is, evidently, an aristocratic know-nothing who believes she can get away with BSing the citizenry.
This is a health issue, and economic issue, a moral issue, and an environmental issue. Carol Peterson seems to think the only problem is that people don't agree with her.
Posted by: Screwy Hoolie | Mar 29, 2007 at 09:27 AM
DQ did something else that was also good on these videos. She usually doesn't include her questions in her videos so that we get a smooth, flowing interview with the person speaking. She really does a nice job setting things up.
However, she left the questions in on these videos so there is no question about whether the Commissioner's statements are in context. Good one, DQ. Proud of you.
Thanks, Ed for shining a an extra bright light on this.
Posted by: The Southern Dem | Mar 29, 2007 at 09:28 AM
Solid reporting, no doubt, but the editing bothered me a little. When there is an edit immeadiately after the question is asked, I'm left wondering, "What was the initial answer?" Maybe we cut to the only part of the anaswer that matters or maybe we cut to the part that paints the subject in the worst possible light. Who knows?
Posted by: Roch101 | Mar 29, 2007 at 09:44 AM
Yeah, there were some tough decisions. Carol changed the subject several times. We were interrupted by ambulance sirens twice. (The courthouse is next to the police/fire complex in Asheville.) Also, for questions I had asked two or three times, she finally just sat there thinking. The gaps are quite long. I chose to cut them because they made her look worse than she already looked. It's all right to take the time to answer a question. I didn't want anyone to look critized for taking the time.
We tend to trust a television station not to insert a different answer to a question. But no one has to trust me. I encourage citizens to question all of the commissioners. Don't believe anything I've written or "said" through video editing. Look at the evidence and you'll see that they support my editing choices.
Posted by: Drama Queen | Mar 29, 2007 at 11:34 AM