Bonnie Hauser was determined to give me one of her "Stop the Airport" signs rattling in the trunk as we drove across southwest Orange County last week.

We were looking at sites identified three years ago for a possible county airport. Two top contenders were in White Cross, the community off Highway 54 west of Carrboro.

But many of the sites are on farmland somewhere. Hauser, a retired management consultant behind the wheel of her Mercedes SUV, and Marilee McTigue, a retired drug industry executive in the back seat, moved to rural Orange to escape city living. Now they're applying their business savvy to Orange County Voice, one of the groups organizing the opposition.

Which they think might include me. I live not 10 minutes from the Maple View Farms ice cream store on Dairyland Road. That's where our tour begins and where, the women point, another of the proposed runway sites sits.

I tell them I have no position on the airport. But Hauser's sales pitch makes me want to go back and assess our coverage of this developing story.

I reviewed our stories since the General Assembly authorized the formation of an airport authority last summer. (For those new to the story, UNC says it needs a new airport because the construction of its Carolina North satellite campus will require closing Horace Williams Airport in Chapel Hill.)

Two stories, judging by their headlines, could be seen as pro-airport: one on a new airport's estimated economic impact and another interviewing state Rep. Bill Faison on the jobs it could create.

Two could be seen as anti-airport: one on a petition by Preserve Rural Orange, the group fighting site H in White Cross; and another interviewing an economist critical of the fiscal impact estimate.

Two more stories depend on your perspective: an interview with Chancellor Holden Thorp and a story reporting that private businessmen helped pay for the economic impact working paper.

We received the most response to the Thorp interview (to read it go to www.chapelhillnews.com and search "thorp and airport" in our archives box). Several readers found the new chancellor's answers vague. One writer said the interview was too hard on him, a comment shared by one commenter on the orangepolitics.org blog last week.

I think our coverage has been fair.

We've talked to people on both sides, quoted them accurately and gone to public records to flesh out the story. That's how we learned who helped pay for the economic impact working paper. But too much of the airport discussion has taken place behind closed doors. That's resulted in stories quoting people on different sides without helping our understanding.

So here are the questions we will continue to ask:

Is the university still committed to closing Horace Williams Airport? Two years ago, state lawmakers asked UNC to reconsider.

If the university's own consultants said RDU was an acceptable, cheaper alternative to building a new airport, why is that option not getting a closer look?

If the airport is now being pursued as much for economic development as medical outreach, which is the appropriate body to steer the project: the university or county government? And who gets to decide?

We know you have more questions. Send them to us, and we'll try to get answers.

Mark Schultz is the editor of The Chapel Hill News. He can be reached at 932-2003 or mschultz@nando.com.