Q: What news source(s) do you trust most and why—locally or nationally? How do you feel media has changed within the past decade, and is it for better or worse? —encore’s Facebook Fan Page

Kristin Gibson
wrote on Sept. 8, 2009, at 11:03am
The latest ridiculous debate over whether or not our president should be allowed to speak within our schools about the importance of a good education is at the height of why honest, trustworthy news is key. It is beyond belief that children within our New Hanover County school system are being denied the opportunity today to hear their president speak to them about staying in school, doing their best, using their minds and doing their homework.

Sy Creed
wrote on Sept. 8, 2009, at 3:35pm
It sucks! Who the freak knows or wants to share the truth? Just their POV—or agenda!

Andrew Kinback
wrote on Sept. 8, 2009, at 3:39pm
With sponsors and interest groups holding the mass media’s leash more often than not these days, it is getting harder to trust major news sources. You just don’t know if what you are seeing is the whole truth or just the angle of the brand. That is why I find myself turning more toward bloggers who, most of the time, have an “all guts, no glory” type of style. They don’t have a whip at their backs, so they are more inclined to be more truthful, offer more unique and alternative viewpoints, and a lot of times are more knowledgeable on the subject matter than any big-league fact checker.

Morgan McGuire
wrote on Sept. 8, 2009, at 4:41pm
Trusting one news source explicitly is a bad idea. It’s best to do research and [use] a variety of sources. And don’t believe everything you read. (: That being said, I rely on CNN, MSNBC and Jon Stewart.

Robert Smith
wrote on Sept. 8, 2009, at 9:10pm
NPR is fairly good. Jon Stewart is thought-provoking and needed in the dialogue. MSNBC and CNN, of course. Most are a little slanted, and most of the truth has to be sought with diligence!

Eric Colburn
wrote on Sept. 9, 2009, at 11:11am
Sensationalism and fear sell; therefore, these tactics are in wide use. Major media outlets are big business, and care about the revenue stream and profits generated. I rely on several news outlets and draw my conclusion from these sources collectively. Unfortunate accountability for accuracy and truth in reporting news to the general public seems nonexistent—although this started long before the past decade.

* * *

NEXT WEEK’S QUESTION: If you were to submit one idea to Congress about how to fix Social Security, what would you suggest?

Answer on encore’s Facebook fan page, under discussion tab, or blog about it at encore café, www.encorepub.com.

Q: What do you think is the greatest legacy Teddy Kennedy left behind, and how will it carry on into future generations? —encore’s Facebook Fan Page

Bambi Weavil
wrote on Sept. 1, 2009, at 11:32pm
The greatest legacy from Senator Kennedy is his living by example, daily public service, both in private and public. He was a tireless advocate of the everyday person. I think if people look at all that he accomplished, all the bills he helped influence, it will inspire the future to strive to achieve goals and keep sailing to a future that puts everyone on more equal and fair footing in all walks of life.

Anghus Houvouras
wrote on Sept. 1, 2009, at 11:36am
That even the most flawed people can be an advocate for change.

Jason Berg
wrote on Sept. 1, 2009, at 12:11pm
What about Mary Jo Kopechne? Wasn’t she an everyday person that deserved equal and unbiased justice?
Yes, even the most flawed people can be an advocate for change, but don’t cry for justice for all when you have hidden from it.

I don’t think he was an evil man, I just think years of political power misconstrued his perception of his own accountability. Just one more reason for term limits for all government officials. Just my opinion, folks. We all have them. Thanks for letting me express mine.

Deborah Goodman
wrote on Sept. 1, 2009, at 12:21pm
I agree with Anghus. As long as we have breath we have the hope for redemption—and for good works. Maybe his penance was to live long enough to appreciate his past horrible, indefensible actions and then try to make his legacy something other than that.

Annie Anthony
wrote on Sept. 1, 2009, at 3:58pm
For me, Ted Kennedy gave me health insurance. If it weren’t for him signing into law Cobra, I would not have health insurance right now. Having recently had double knee replacement, and divorced, I had no other options than keeping my husband’s insurance, and I am grateful to have it! Thank you, Mr. Kennedy!

Ryan Wendel
wrote on Sept. 3, 2009, at 12:21pm
Murderous moonlit drives/swims after hitting the sauce a little too hard. Also, his reinforcement of the fact that America’s rich and powerful are not bound by the same set of standards as the common man.

Morgan McGuire
wrote on Sept. 3, 2009, at 12:33pm
Senator Kennedy’s legacy is so multifaceted. His family’s political history alone is unparalleled. But that can’t overshadow his achievements as one of the greatest legislators we’ve ever seen. His willingness to work with “the other side” is something we could use a lot more of. Almost every bipartisan bill in the last seven years has had Kennedy’s ... Read More signature on it, from No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Drug Program, to pension reform and a collective bargaining bill for first responders. As VP Biden said, “the legacy of Senator Kennedy can be measured by how we look at one another”—a nod to Kennedy’s work with Civil Rights causes and legislation. But perhaps what I will remember him for most is his endorsement of Obama for president, which may have shaped the outcome of the election. Kennedy’s absence will surely be felt.

Arthur Shuey
wrote on Sept. 3, 2009, at 1:21pm
He backed minimum wage, which causes inflation and takes jobs from minority skewed unskilled labor. He backed emigration law laxities that have led to the Hispanic concerns and frictions the nation clearly has, while his personal concerns for Hispanics were best reflected in his being expelled from Harvard for paying someone to take a Spanish exam ... Read More for him. He torpedoed Nixon’s healthcare program, which he later admitted was a whoopsie. He disrespected women, cheated on his wife, only stopped being a flagrant bullying drunk when age and health forced him to do so... Hard to choose just one.

Mike Rokoski
wrote on Sept. 3, 2009, at 2:58pm
Here’s what I think:

1. He was expelled from Harvard.

2. He never made it beyond the rank of PRIVATE in the military, after his dad, the bootlegger, got his enlistment term shortened from four years to two.

3. Chappaquiddick Island, 1969—no more needs to be said.

His legacy for future generations is how can second and third generation privileged and entitled generations not abuse the system; he was an example of what we don’t need in government!

See link: www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/k/ted-kennedy-legacy.htm

* * *

NEXT WEEK’S QUESTION: What news source(s) do you trust most and why—locally or nationally? How do you feel media has changed within the past decade, and is it for better or worse?

Answer on encore’s Facebook fan page, under discussion tab, or blog about it at encore café, www.encorepub.com.

Sonya Henry
wrote on Aug 25, 2009, at 3:43pm
Do I even have to answer this???? ;-)

(Ed note: Sonya’s referring to editor Shea Carver’s number-one rule of Facebook: “Never talk about Facebook.”)

Tom Walksak
wrote on Aug 25, 2009, at 3:48pm
Facebook faux pas #1: When someone says, “Do I even have to answer this???? ;-)”

Wade Wilson
wrote on Aug 25, 2009, at 4:05pm
When people like Mary Lynn give too many boring details.

Mary Lynn Ganey Dean
wrote on Aug 25, 2009, at 4:10pm
When people like Wade Wilson offer free cookies to sell more houses—lame-o!

Geoff Nicholson
wrote on Aug 25, 2009, at 4:14pm
POUNDING OUT IN ALL CAPS! I THOUGHT WE LEARNED THAT WAS A NO-NO A LONG, LONG TIME AGO!

Shelia Whitmeyer
wrote on Aug 25, 2009, at 4:43pm
Someone writing bad things about a person who will eventually see the information—a very stupid move. I cringe knowing the other person will read it sooner or later!

Pat Nowak Hairston
wrote on Aug 25, 2009, at 4:56pm
Too much detail; I’m showering now. Who cares?

Caleb Filomena
wrote on Aug 25, 2009, at 5pm
Your mom’s friend request.

Jen Poe
wrote on Aug 25, 2009, at 5:07pm
Not returning Facebook messages! I’m not crazy, not a stalker, so even just a one-word answer is acceptable! It’s like when you give someone a gift, and you don’t get a “thank you” or a thank-you note. Annoying, annoying, annoying.

Lisa Hill
wrote on Aug 25, 2009, at 6:03pm
The newbies writing on walls and not realizing that all their “friends” see it.

Christy Smith Crist
wrote on Aug 25, 2009, at 6:28pm
Not knowing when to use “me” or “I.” ... My fingers itch to correct some posts.

Ed Curtis
wrote on Aug 25, 2009, at 7:42pm
Incessant status updates every minute on the minute. If you’re going to do that, just use Twitterr—actually, don’t do it at all because NO ONE CARES!

Judy Carver
wrote on Aug 25, 2009, at 7:56pm
To tell everyone each detail of your day and then say, “not enough time in the day”—DUH, then what are you doing on Facebook?

Lindsay Eisnor
wrote on Aug 25, 2009, at 8pm
When people join in on a conversation you’ve had back and forth on someone’s wall—creepers.

Christopher Simmons
wrote on Aug 25, 2009, at 10:34pm
Airing dirty laundry regarding husband/wife.

Andy Brame
wrote on Aug 26, 2009, at 11:14am
Forgetting that someone’s “Wall” is a public area and should be kept for general comments, not those of a more private matter, which should be sent via message or email. For example, “Hey, hope you and your boyfriend will kiss and make up after your argument last night. If you don’t, I think you should start to go out with John Doe—he’s so cute!” Or, “I heard you are going to my same doctor to have a colonoscopy on Thursday—good luck!”

Katie Lucas
wrote on Aug 27, 2009, at 11:40pm
Telling everyone how drunk you are/were/are going to get—at least if you’re over age 23.

* * *

NEXT WEEK’S QUESTION: Tell us what you think Teddy Kennedy’s greatest legacy was and how it will carry on into our country’s future generations.

Answer on encore’s Facebook fan page, under discussion tab, or blog about it at encore café, www.encorepub.com.

Melissa Russell Wagner
wrote on August 19th, 2009, at 2:31pm
It hurts small business. Body shops, auto repair and salvage yards. I would say that it is a clunker. It is a sorry deal.

Pat Nowak Hairston
wrote on August 19th, 2009, at 4:26pm
Might be good for some, but not much car can be had for $4500, and the people that need to replace their clunkers can’t afford car payments. It’s a clunker.

Cory Clawson
wrote on August 19th, 2009, at 7:40pm
The Clunker program is nothing more than a hidden bailout for the Union workers. Honestly, it is not really an incentive, it’s just a way to redistribute monies in an area where the gov’t wants it to be spent.

One should not be surprised if this ends up with results similar to our sub-prime mortgage crisis from years back. Credit is being extended to ones who cannot afford new cars. If they could, a purchase would have already been made. When the smoke clears America will end with the same end result with thousands upon thousands of defaulted notes.

Tom Walsak
wrote on August 20th, 2009, at 12:09pm
Cash for Clunkers destroys assets and increases debt. Obama is the puppet of the bankers and the Council on Foreign Relations, whose goal, by the way, is to incrementally destroy America and move toward a world government.

Susan Grantier
wrote on August 20th, 2009, at 1:29pm
The program stipulares that the vehicles can’t be resold, they have to be junked. This doesn’t jive with the philosophy of “reduce, REUSE, then recycle.” Many of these perfectly usable cars are being taken off of the road for a negligable reduction in emissions.

Greg Spahr
wrote on August 20th, 2009, at 1:55pm
The American auto industry put its head in the sand, didn’t produce quality fuel-efficient vehicles, went bankrupt, and now is giving a $4500 rebate on new cars courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Automobile owners who either didn’t notice or were not concerned about the price of oil and purchased gas-guzzling vehicles are getting that rebate.

What do people who purchased more fuel-efficient cars years ago get? Nothing.

If you keep rewarding poor decisions and penalizing good ones you will get nothing except poor decisions and the expectation that the government will correct your mistakes for you.

Arthur Shuey
wrote on August 20th, 2009, at 2:55pm
It’s bread and circuses, the Administration buying good will. It doesn’t take cars off the road, but replaces cars with somewhat better cars. That’s small impact. Now, a program encouraging people to use bicycles and public transportation instead of cars would be a good thing, addressing the American fat epidemic, environmental concerns, diminishing gas reserves and traffic snarls.

Michal Wisniowski
wrote on August 20th, 2009, at 12:12pm
While not an entirely bad idea in itself, the program is limited by three significant factors. The biggest of which is that it is only available for the purchase of a new vehicle, and in this recession not that many people, myself included, can afford to buy at $15k - $20k vehicle. There are incredibly few choices under $15k, and their quality is debatable.

In addition, you can only trade in your vehicle if it is 25 years old or newer, and gets a combined mileage of 18 mpg! I personally know of only one person who might have a vehicle that qualifies under those criteria. As such, I feel the program falls short of what it tries to accomplish. At the very least, it should allow for the purchase of a used vehicle under the stipulation that it meets a specific gas mileage standard.

* * *

NEXT WEEK'S QUESTION: What, in your opinion, is the biggest faux pas in Facebook etiquette?

Answer on encore’s Facebook fan page, under discussion tab, or blog about it at encore café, www.encorepub.com.

Q: How do you feel about Michael Vick being allowed back into the NFL? Should there be stipulations to his return as a player? —encore’s Facebook Fan Page

Danielle Babuscio Morgan
wrote on Aug 10, 2009, at 3:26pm
Wish I could say I thought this up, but I can’t. I read this on some site and found it to be genius.

“I’m still hoping my dream scenario plays out: Reinstatement, which is proper, and then unanimous rejection by all 32 teams, which is just.”

I do not think he should be allowed back in. Normal criminals can’t find jobs once they get out of prison because of their records; yet, this scum bag get’s to walk right back into a dream job. Sorry, there is something very wrong with that situation!

Donna May
wrote on Aug 10, 2009, at 3:33pm
If the NFL commisioner wants to clean up the NFL like he says he does, then he should not let convicted felons play. PERIOD! It should not matter how good they are or how many butts that player can get in the seats. If, on the other hand, all he cares about is money, then he made the right move to keep Vick playing.

Trey Thorne
wrote on Aug 10, 2009, at 3:40pm
He did the crime and has paid the time.

Alisa Harris
wrote on Aug 10, 2009, at 3:54pm
Vick is a celebrity athlete, and he will return to football despite any outcry otherwise. He has served what the judicial system has deemed appropriate. I have my own ideas about what punishment he deserved, but that punishment harkens back to another era and is now outlawed...good thing I’m not a judge. Athletes are commodities in the cut-throat world of professional athletics, and as such are used and discarded daily. I would hope that the NFL will use this particular athlete’s infamy for more than just his skills on the field. Vick should be required either by the commission or by team contract to give a percentage of salary to causes that support programs to counter dog fighting and those that rehabilitate the dogs (and owners). There’s more that can be made good about his return to football than just sticking our chins out and saying he doesn’t deserve to return. If the NFL or an individual team doesn’t make some stipulation on his return than more shame to them.

Ryan Wendel
wrote on Aug. 10, 2009, at 4:06pm
My understanding is that they have him on a tight leash. Rather poetic... and justified in my opinion. I would honestly like to see him slip up and get the boot. That, or perhaps someone will administer a Joe Theismann on his ass.

Granted, if he can behave and act like a good little boy, he should have the chance to redeem himself. I doubt it will happen, though.

John Slade
wrote on Aug 10, 2009, at 4:15pm
Michael Vick is an extraordinary football player. He committed extraordinary acts of violence on animals. He has been given an extraordinary second chance at his previous life. Hopefully he will take this chance to really be extraordinary.

Susan Kranyik
wrote on Aug 10, 2009, at 4:21pm
I don’t see any reason for a convicted felon to not be able to play football. The real issue here is this—did he change? And is his second chance at being a football star going to have any positive effect on stopping dogfighting?

James Register
wrote on Aug 10, 2009, at 4:38pm
Give the guy a second chance. If he blows this one, then banned for life. Although Pete Rose was barred from baseball for betting on his own team to win and can’t get in the Hall of Fame (which is completely whacked). Two different sports with different rules.

Bill Barber
wrote on Aug 10, 2009, at 4:50pm
The Pete Rose ruling sucked. He should be in the HOF! Vick killed innocent pets. He did serve his time and he should have one more chance to play—but only one.

Matt Barbour
wrote on Aug. 10, 2009, at 5:54pm
Let’s see if the guy can redeem himself. Tony Dungee has taken him under his wing, and this can only be a good thing. We all know he is an amazing athlete ON the field. What would be nice to see is him becoming outspoken against animal cruelty OFF the field. A lot of people who do some really bad things still look up to Vick—it would be nice to see him sway them in a better direction. Either way, he effs up ONE TIME, he’s banned for life!

Candice Brooks Fortner
wrote on Aug 10, 2009, at 6:11pm
I think he had his chance and should not be allowed back into a profession that puts him in the public eye. Whether it is good or not his profession puts him in the position of being a role model for a lot of kids and, after committing the ruthless atrocities he committed, he should never be allowed back.

Evan Scott
wrote on Aug 11, 2009, at 9:15am
I believe everyone deserves a second chance. As for stipulations, I don’t know. While there may or may not be serious flaws in his character, he has been punished for his crimes. The extent of whether or not it was justice served is debatable.

Mr. Vick has paid for his crimes, and I believe he deserves the opportunity to redeem himself in the eyes of the public.

Bo Dean
wrote on Aug 11, 2009, at 9:17am
Ummm ... does it really matter? We make idols and millionaires out of football players while soldiers and teachers end up on food stamps—come on! Aren’t their better issues to focus on?

Richards Davis
wrote on Aug 11, 2009, at 9:53am
If you have a small dog, look at it right now. You see a beautiful companion and a friend. Michael Vick took dogs like that and literally fed them to be eaten alive by his pit bulls. Michael Vick is a monster and should never be allowed to play in the NFL again. Any team that signs him should be boycotted. Everything in this country can’t be about money. We have to take a stand on something sometime.

There are some things that are so heinous that they can be forgiven but not forgotten. The things Michael Vick did fall into that category and point toward some deep character flaws. There is absolutely no way this man should be allowed to become an NFL star again to be celebrated, emulated and idol worshipped by millions of American kids. What’s next? Are we going to let Charles Manson redeem himself as a rock star just because he can play a guitar?

* * *

NEXT WEEK’S QUESTION: Tell us how you feel about the Cash for Clunkers program the government just renewed. Do you think it’s a good deal for the American public? Or is it a clunker itself?

Answer on encore’s Facebook fan page, under discussion tab, or blog about it at encore café, www.encorepub.com.