nvdaily.com link to home page

Traffic | Weather | Mobile Edition
Archives | Subscribe

Opinion arrow Letters to the Editor

| 0 | 42 Comments

Letter to the Editor: I don't let Fox News tell me how to think


As this election season is mercifully coming to an end soon, I challenge my conservative friends out there to try to have a political conversation without uttering the phrase, "the liberal media." I wonder whether it can be done.

When somehow my television gets turned over to Fox News by my most frequent houseguest, there is never a program lately that doesn't use the terminology "the liberal media" somewhere in a conversation or interview.

Last night, I overheard the host of a prime-time Fox News program blame Mitt Romney's latest (less-than-stellar) poll numbers on .. .you guessed I t..."the liberal media." Why is this entity such an issue, when the supposedly sensible folks are all tuning into Fox News? How could they possibly be influenced by a "liberal" channel they are not watching?

I know and understand that Fox News is popular to many and not going away, and that people are, of course, free to watch anything they want. What baffles me is how upset its loyal viewers become when a different news channel reports a story minus the conservative slant (or so they hear).

I've come to deduce that Fox is happiest when its viewers are unhappy, suspicious and dismissiveof ideas beyond those presented on its so-called "fair" and "balanced" programs.

Personally, I'm satisfied with obtaining my information from a variety of sources and forming my own opinions, rather than having Fox News tell me how to think. I guess that all of those other "liberal" (unfair and unbalanced?) news outlets have caused me to NOT live in constant fear and suspicion. Shame on me!

Erin Miller, Woodstock


mercifully coming to an end is putting it mildly. my question is, why do so many people watch fox, love fox, hate fox, blame fox ?? if you let a news cast influence your voting you must be a moron anyway. i agree, shame on me.

"Personally, I'm satisfied with obtaining my information from a variety of sources and forming my own opinions, rather than having Fox News tell me how to think. I guess that all of those other "liberal" (unfair and unbalanced?) news outlets have caused me to NOT live in constant fear and suspicion. Shame on me!"

Well stated, Mr. Miller.

Fox News has made a success of itself by selling itself as "the other". What you're witnessing is the brilliance of it's model. There has long been the "liberal media" narrative, but not until Roger Ailes has come along has it been so demonized. The success in Fox News is that in labeling everyone else as "liberal media" and simultaneously pushing the opinion that the "liberal media" is corrupt encourages their viewers to willfully ignore anything BUT Fox News. Unfortunately for their viewers this tends to result in misinformation and ignorance (as confirmed by multiple surveys), as they aren't encouraged to reaffirm their opinions with outside sources. MSNBC, despite all false-equivelance arguments, doesn't operate in the same way because their viewers are more apt to also view CNN, ABC, CBS, and other members of the "liberal media".

Unfortunately for our electorate, this polarization of the media is being reflected in our citizenry, resulting in an incompetent Government and civil unrest. Until the media stop pointing fingers and truly represent "fair and balanced" news, I don't expect this will end well.

"resulting in an incompetent Government and civil unrest."

TRUE. Civil unrest? Who is sowing these seeds among the America populace? Look at what Murdock's (FOX CEO) news empire was accused of doing in the U.K.; e.g., "employees of the newspaper were accused of engaging in phone hacking, police bribery, and exercising improper influence in the pursuit of publishing stories. Investigations conducted from 2005–2007 concluded that the paper's phone hacking activities were limited to celebrities, politicians and members of the British Royal Family."


Are we naive enough to believe it couldn't (or isn't) happening here?

There is a sense in which all of us are prisoners of knowledge. But, counterrevolutions of misinformation devour their children, too.

Some media regimes have been popular, not in spite of their irrationality and cruelty, but because of it. I will join the crowd cheering with joy when Fox News is dragged to the scaffold.

Fox news is happy with anyone who can't or won't bother looking at any facts. None of these candidates are perfect, nor free of the big money influence, but for now trying to do a third party "protest" vote or sitting this one out will not work either.

I knew the Romney one-man show at last week's debates would sway some. It's all smoke and mirrors and Obama's dismal performance was troubling.

As stated elsewhere:

"They say the president was thrown during the debate by what they call Romney's willingness to abandon his previous positions, including his $5 trillion tax cut proposal. In the next debate — and in television advertisements before then — the Democrat and his aides are expected to accuse Romney of lying about his own plans".

Well duh! I would have thought Romney previous "position" and the LIAR-factor would have been the first thing to call him on. Are WE getting smarter or are they too close to see?

Thursday we can watch the Biden/Ryan fight - I mean debate. Last night the Rhinestone Cowboy, Allen debated our former governor with the same ole stuff regurgitated from the sound bites. Didn't hear him mention his daddy this time (that was different!).

Yes, this too shall end. . .imagine what this country could do with all that $$$$$$$$$$$$$ wasted on these drawn out elections. Until this Supreme Court STOPS playing games, I guess we will be stuck with this corrupt system.

These are the same people (Fox News) who have convinced a naive American public that liberal is a dirty word-that liberals are unpatriotic trembling pacifists when it comes to defending this country. Nothing could be further than the truth.

An objective look at the history of this country will show that it was liberals who not only fought for social justice for the working class but were front and center when it came to national defense, and the creation of this great nation.

Although liberal and conservative where not categories in politics in those days, it was the original liberals, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams who led the fight for independence from England, while it was the conservative Tories who swore allegiance to the crown. If it were up to conservatives we would still be singing hail to Queen. One must also recognize the contribution of the liberal Thomas Paine, whose inspirational writings, not only advocated independence, but bolstered the moral of Washington’s troops in their moments of despair. His liberal manifesto, “The Rights of Man”, proposed such innovations as free public education, and income security for the working class.

During the late thirties, it was the conservatives, led by their leader Robert Taft, who sponsored the so called America first movement to prevent U.S. intervention against Nazism in Europe. They initially opposed American entry in World war II during the critical years when England was alone in resisting the Nazi onslaught. It was the father of modern liberalism, Franklin Roosevelt, who stood by our English cousins in their time of need and led us to our most important military victory over the Nazi and Japanese oppressors.

Liberals have fought and died for this country in all our wars from the war of independence to the present conflict in Iraq. And so, my liberal friends, despite the flag waving rhetoric from right wingers, you have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to patriotism, and love of country. Be proud to be a Liberal!

Thanks grigelon, that was very interesting. Thomas Paine's writings should be read by all.

MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CNN then CBS are guilty of sins of omission -- in that order.

The WaPost spent 5200 words (front page over-the-fold) on a hatchet job on Romney last Spring.

No such vetting of Obama has occured in the past several years by the Post or the NYT -- they are the basis from where most news reports are repeated through the various outlets in the country.

How many of you know that Obama is about to break the $1 Billion donation threshold -- most from untraceable online donations?

Why no emphasis on the various admninstration coverup attempts regarding the Libya attack?

FOX is but an outlet. It is not the Boogeyman.

The issue is one of emphasis (and deemphasis) from the Media at large.

Over the past four years+ Fox has been training its viewers. There are actually videos about its techniques, such as the constant use of "people say" or "they say" etc when interjecting opinion in even the day time programming. Even the usage of "Fair and Balanced", much like WallyWorld's "Save Money, Live Better" is a basic brainwashing type advertising technique one learns in high school level business class. Short, catchy, see and hear it enough and people believe it.

I watched a news anchor call the President racist after he spoke about equality in the mid afternoon (their supposed "real" news programming). Worse, I've watched the evening commentary show a video of VP Biden, then the commentator make up his own version of what was "really meant" and witnessed myself message boards (elsewhere) light up with what the LIE the commentator said and not what those people just saw for themselves. We have seen here on NVD, people post bald faced lies claiming Obamacare contains things it just doesn't, even seen someone blaming Obama for Bush1 policies, etc.

The arm extends past Fox Spews to other propaganda sites, we witnessed last week(or so) the concentrated effort from right wing media to use tidbits of a years old video to disparage the President. Its sad. Because a whole group of Americans have been entirely convinced to not only believe and accept the lies and misinformation but to spread it. Its a very black mark against our country in terms of education and intelligence level. To the point that Willard is considered the debate winner simply by telling the most lies.

Convincing a group of people that any and every other source of information in the ENTIRE world is false and that anyone one with factual information is just "drinking the MSM kool-aid". Its nothing short of insanity and causes one to wonder if this was how family members felt watching their loved ones follow the likes of Jim Jones off to their death.

"I" still maintain they should be brought up on domestic terrorism charges. Our country is going no where fast with this much false information, my way or no way attitude.


I don't believe anyone claimed that MSNBC, CBS, ABC, or CNN were infallible. On the contrary, while I can't speak for everyone else, my point was that we *should* obtain information from multiple sources, whether they fit our worldview or not. This is the primary failing of a large part of the Fox viewership, because, as I said, they have painted the "liberal media" as the boogeyman, and thus offered their own umbrella for those scared of anyone who isn't "conservative" for all to cower under.

I wouldn't, and don't, have a problem with Fox peddling their ..*opinion*.. I do have a problem with them selling it as 100% news, and their fanbase applauding it as such and completely disavowing reality, because "Fox said so". That they don't look beyond their own small bubble is the whole point. And it's not going to change if we don't expect more from our news sources.

An interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

Two great take-a-ways:
David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Bush, has also said, "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox."

And since the Fox fans love to compare any other news with the novel 1984... Wikipedia edits

In August 2007, a new utility, Wikipedia Scanner, revealed that Wikipedia articles relating to Fox News had been edited from IP addresses owned by Fox News,[77] though it was not possible to determine exactly who the editors were. The tool showed that self-referential edits from IP ranges owned by corporations and news agencies were not uncommon, including from The New York Times.[77] Fox edits received attention in the blogosphere and on some online news sites. Wikipedia articles edited from Fox computers from 2005 through 2007 included Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Chris Wallace and Brit Hume.[78]

playnotwork (Love the pseudonym, BTW!):

My post is in response to MS Miller, whose letter overstates the impact of FOX viewership -- 3 Million tops (about 1/45th the number of voters in 2008.)

As to your post, my view is that Special Report -- the network news show on FOX -- is more illumination than CNN's Situation Room. The rest on both networks are opinion shows -- and quite clear about it.

(CNN gave up on HLN a few years ago.)

The sins of omission charge stands...Nobody but FOX, as example, is giving serious attention to what happened in Libya and how the administration handled it afterward.

The fair citizen should wonder why.

If you google: U.S. officer got no reply to requests for more security in Benghazi

You will see that sites from CNN to Yahoo to Huff Post ran stories today, I believe at one point NVD even had the AP report up. The difference between the rest of the information outlets and Fox Spews, is everyone else isn't trying to make it an Obama conspiracy and pound it 24-7 for political gain.

Easy answer, turn off the boob tube and get your news from multiple sources (as was already stated)

DF: :Why no emphasis on the various admninstration coverup attempts regarding the Libya attack?"


DF: "The sins of omission charge stands...Nobody but FOX, as example, is giving serious attention to what happened in Libya and how the administration handled it afterward."

WHAT???????????? WHAT???????????????????

By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, journalism keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. ~ Oscar Wilde

The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead. ~ Aristotle

Oh My God! Nothing I have read--ever--has explained GWB more accurately!

“He's a man [George W. Bush] who is lucky to be governor of Texas. He is a man who is unusually incurious, abnormally unintelligent, amazingly inarticulate, fantastically uncultured, extraordinarily uneducated, and apparently quite proud of all these things.” ~ Christopher Hitchens


I'd suggest that you're perhaps underestimating the impact. The highest rated program (O'Reilly) comes in at 3 mil, but I would expect that "unique" viewers, Fox would come in closer to probably in the neighborhood of 8-10 million daily. Not to mention Fox News' cousins: the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, et al, Fox Business Channel, Fox News Radio, and any of the distant non-directly related conservative talk radio programs which rely heavily on Fox's reporting, and I'd think the number is probably closer to reaching nearly 40-50 million, easily. That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of Fox's internet presence, and all of it's related influence.

I will give you, however, that Shep Smith I believe to be the best (if not "only") pure newsman that Fox has.

I would also suggest that A) Libya hasn't been completely ignored by everyone else and B) there is probably 2 reasons for why it hasn't been played up as much:

1) There isn't as much of a story as Fox would purport there to be and/or:

2) At least in MSNBC's case, it doesn't fit the narrative they're trying to portray (I wouldn't suggest the same for the non-cable news).

Likewise, Fox performs in a similar manner, downplaying stories that don't fit their narrative. For instance, after the debate last week, Romney's honesty was questioned (by at least a dozen media outlets). Now, in most instances that could be a matter of opinion, but in at least one case (the "pre-existing" topic), Romney's own campaign refuted his assertion immediately following the debate. How much airplay did that get?

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. ~George Bernard Shaw

The Mendacity of Mitt Romney Lying To The Teabillies


765 lies listed chronologically with comments and reference source weblinks

I enjoyed reading all of your comments, whether you agreed or disagreed with me about my FOX News letter. This was a lively discussion! Thanks everyone!

Jane8> I read Hitchens' bio and wished I had not wasted my time reading his quote or bio.

Bettsi - where was your letter? I missed it?


Jane8 - Thanks for the Hitchens quote. Intrigued by his wit, I searched for more of his observations concerning George W. Bush. Turns out Hitchens had quite a bit to say about both Bush's. Dare I say GOP sympathizers are not too thrilled with his comments. Enjoy.


valley patriot - here are some of the really good Hitchens observations and quotes. Enjoy.


"A year or so ago, George Walker Bush looked like a sorry second act to George Herbert Walker Bush (and I was the origin of the unkind remark about the cruel circumcision o fhis Herbert)." ["Hey, I'm Doing My Best," Observer, 1/20/02]

"What did he do to be shorn at birth of his Herbert?" ["Bush's Death Watch," Nation, 8/23/99-8/30/99]

"Much nodding is required at his public events, as sympathetic but baffled audiences do their decent best to show that they know what he thinks he meant to say." ["In Dog We Trust," Evening Standard, 9/14/00]

"He's unusually incurious, abnormally unintelligent, amazingly inarticulate, fantastically uncultured, extraordinarily uneducated, and apparently quite proud of all these things." [Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC, 10/30/00]

... One of the most mediocre candidates in U.S. history." ["Dirty Rotten Scoundrels," Observer, 11/12/00]

" ... He is the least smart guy ever to have sought the office; a dingbat and a stumbler and a dyslexic and a former p***-artist who has the same chance of finding his own rear end with both hands as he once had of parking his car without scraping a wall" ["Kelsey for President," Evening Standard, 1/23/01]

"George Bush chokes on a pretzel while gaping at the television screen, and comes away with a loud blush on his cheek. What a free gift that would once have been. I can do the routine in my sleep: since he utters chunks of twisted and convoluted matter, it's no wonder that he ingests the raw material before spewing it." ["Hey, I'm Doing My Best," Observer, 1/20/02]

"Only the other day, he assured an audience of rich people that 'not over my dead body will they raise your taxes.' This amazing mangling of an easy cliche could only invite the question: well, then, Mr. President, over whose cadaver will those taxes be increased?" ["Hey, I'm Doing My Best," Observer, 1/20/02]

"To this president, it is an axiom that the rich are the means of elevating the poor, and that it is therefore the rich who need elevation." ["Hey, I'm Doing My Best," Observer, 1/20/02]

"His vices are ... the vices of a provincial American conservative who preferred oilmen as friends, or even oilmen to friends." ["Hey, I'm Doing My Best," Observer, 1/20/02]

"I have never met anybody, even among the dimmest of my students, who wouldn't in some ways be better qualified to be president of the United States." ["My Dimmest Student Is Better Qualified to Be the President of the United States," Mirror, 9/11/02]

"I think his simple-mindedness is a virtue, in a sense. He's not going to have his mind changed by the last person he spoke to." [Quoted in "Christopher Hitchens: Off the Cuff, in His Own Words," Georgetowner, 5/27/04]

"President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?)" ["Unfairenheit 9/11," Slate, 6/21/04]

"It's [been] quite a few years now since George W. Bush took down the Democratic Party's then-favorite daughter, Ann Richards, as governor of Texas. Since then, he has regularly beaten every Democrat who has run against him. But this hasn't prevented many supposedly clever people from continually underestimating him. And now look what he's done: won the popular vote, cleaned up the electoral college vote, increased his party's hold on both Houses, while enabling a successful election in Afghanistan and fighting to hold one in Iraq. What an idiot!" ["Not So Dumb Then?," Mirror, 11/11/04]

"His eyes are so close together he could use a monocle." [Real Time with Bill Maher, HBO, 9/23/05]

"One recalls the governor of Texas who, asked if the Bible should also be taught in Spanish, replied that 'if English was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me.' Rightly are the simple so called." [God Is Not Great (New York: Twelve, 2007),110]

Sorry...Bettsi is my user name. Erin is my real name.

There had been no emphasis by most of the Media over the very clear disconnect between the various renditions of what happened in Libya for the first three weeks.

They tried everything from "It was the movie" to "spontaneous demonstrations" but stopped short of "the dog ate our diplomatic cable."

In short: Obama and company lied numerous times and got away with it. Over the murder of our ambassador, no less!

So, take your quote of Aristotle to heart and get yourself educated, Jane08.


"I don't trust Romney. He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda. It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama,” said Barbara Doherty, Glen’s mother.

Nice! Do you intend to add on to it and continue the fight against ignorance or just shorten the version for NVD purposes?

Nor should we "make (her) son's death part of (any) political agenda," Katybug.

The issue is whether the implications of our foreign policy is being accurately reported -- warts and all -- and specifically what went on in Libya.

So, as you brought a grieving mother's first reaction into the mix (for reasons I hope are better than the obvious) do you truly wonder what Mrs. Doherty thinks of the Obama Administration four weeks after her son's death Kaybug?

...or do you really not care?

Just for shites and giggles I searched for "Libya attack" on Huff post....and then I scanned the dates of the first 5 pages of the 134k posts....and even that very liberal site has been following each new development as it unfolds and reporting it.


Congratulations Dan, you showed yourself to be a prime example of the teabilly with fingers in their ears shouting "la la la la" at the reality of Fox Spews. More fun facts...google up who the two primary stockholders in the "patriotic" channel.

I truly believe that Mother would have just as much issue with Fox trying to use the situation as political fodder as she does with Willard. (But hey, that's just my POV as a Mom)

Katybug: You dodged the questions put to you.

Jane08. The Internet is an entirely different matter, isn't it? The MSM (what IS at issue) is no part of it.

Sorry, Ladies: I reversed my answers to you both. I'm sure you can sort it out.

The Huffington Post is a "aggregate" site. It does very little reporting on it's own. The articles that Katybug is referring to were written (and distributed) by the AP and Reuters, the heart of "mainstream media".

True. My point was that its not even being ignored by what is 100% considered "liberal media" contrary to Flathers assertion only Fox is reporting it.

Dan, again, just because the rest of the world isn't talking about it 24-7 and trying to make it a political football against Obama doesn't mean they aren't reporting it. They are simply reporting the information as it comes instead of trying to create their own version.

DF: "Obama and company lied numerous times and got away with it. Over the murder of our ambassador, no less!

Flathers, I really do understand that someone who spent their career in a post office (Peabody MA -population 51,653 - Jul 2011), does not understand the Department of State's chain of command with regard to U.S. Ambassadors, etc. Yes, the ambassador of a country is appointed and serves at the pleasure of the President; however, that ambassador does not report directly to the president; he or she reports directly and takes their marching orders from the State Department's area desk; i.e., the WDC/State Department with the area of responsibility (AOR) for the country in which he or she serves. It would be the State Department/AOR that monitors ongoing situations/changing events in a country (Libya) and brings any necessary reporting to the attention of the President through official channels, much like the military works--chain of command. To my knowledge there has been only one Embassy in the world that ever had direct contact/access to the White House; and, as many things have changed regarding that county, I seriously doubt if the direct access still exists. Reporting on Ambassador Stevens, etc. would not have hit the operations center of the White House until the Embassy personnel were under attack and, at that point, the pace with which the riots escalated would have ended with the four deaths before the Department/AOR had the opportunity to advise the White House. Regarding your "lies" comment, I previously listed ten or fifteen FOREIGN newspaper articles that were reporting the account of these killings. No one knew exactly what happened so how can you--if you have any integrity whatsoever--claim that anyone is lying as to the events which happened in Libya that night? Our FBI only recently gained access to the location and, as the area under attack has been raped by scavengers, we may never know all the details. First you posted the statement that "Obama was sleeping while Ambassador Stevens was running for his life." Now you talk about "Obama lying" about the events that night in Libya. This situation is still very much under investigation and we, because of the swiftness and forcefulness, of the attack may never known exactly what happened in Libya. We are getting the best data available given that it is still an ongoing investigation. Any rational, intelligent person should be able to understand that.

This was a reporter on the ground in Libya that night and his account of events. Given the date/time stamp of his report, I doubt that even you could declare it bogus.

Chris McGreal** reports:

Officials said the consulate began taking fire at about 10pm Libya time. Fifteen minutes later, the attackers got past "robust security"- American and Libyan - and into the building, setting it on fire.

Officials said there were three people inside at the time - Stevens, Sean Smith, a state department technician, and an American security guard

The guard escaped but went back into the building to try and find Stevens. He came across Smith, who was already dead, but could not find the ambassador before the guard was driven out by the fire and thick smoke.

About an hour later, American security personnel were able to get back into the consulate but Stevens was gone. US officials said that at some point - although they do not know the time - the ambassador either escaped the consulate or was helped out and was taken to hospital by Libyans. It is not clear if he was alive at that point.

US officials did not discover what happened to Stevens until his body was returned to them at Benghazi airport at about dawn. They say they do not yet know the cause of his death although a doctor at the hospital who treated Stevens said he succumbed to smoke inhalation.

Officials declined to speculate on who was behind the attack or whether it was pre-planned or opportunistic. But one said that intelligence of potential attacks on US targets to mark the anniversary of 9/11 did not flag up any warnings in Benghazi.

An official also said that a Libyan militia, formed during the revolution, came to the defense of the US consulate."

** Chris McGreal is the Guardian's Washington correspondent. He has previously been posted in Johannesburg and in Jerusalem. McGreal is a former BBC journalist in Central America and merchant seaman. (Time stamped 12 Sep 12 21:52 BST)

You do not seem to understand, Flathers, that as you throw out your nonsensical remarks, you are not only insulting the memory Ambassador Stevens but all who have gone before him.

Katybug, Fox editing? Ah, say it ain't so! I once read Wikipedia about Sean Hannity. What I read at the time--a few years ago--stated that he is Irish and holds a dual Irish-U.S. citizenship. That has since been removed and I don't care enough to search any further. It might have been someone just messing around or it might be true. Most of the Fox 'talking heads' read like boiler plate inputs anyway.

But wouldn't it be sad if it were true as most of his American followers think him to be the truth master.

The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead. ~ Aristotle

MOUNT VERNON, Ohio — Mitt Romney will stop mentioning a former Navy SEAL killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month in his campaign speeches, according to aides, after the man’s mother said the GOP presidential candidate should stop invoking her son’s name.

“I don’t trust Romney. He shouldn’t make my son’s death part of his political agenda,” Barbara Doherty said in a statement broadcast Wednesday on WHDH-TV in Boston. “It’s wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama.”
Barbara Doherty’s son Glen was killed last month in the consulate attack.

Campaign aides later clarified that Romney will no longer mention of Doherty while campaigning after doing so at least three times this week, most recently on Wednesday in Ohio.


Ah, what a guy, that Mr. Romney! It only took the pleading of a grieving Mother to get him to back off from capitalizing on her son's death for his political gain.

There you go AGAIN!

I don't know whose comments you distort more... yours or Jane's. But, I am positive both sides of your mouth are exhausted.

Worse yet, you don't take criticism well. The perfect example is I will say one little thing and you'll go all nuts on me.


Leave a comment

What do you think?

(You may use HTML tags for style)


Comments that are posted on nvdaily.com represent the opinion of the commenter and not the Northern Virginia Daily/nvdaily.com. If you feel that a comment is objectionable, please click on the Report Abuse link above. We will review the reported comment and make a decision on deleting it if we feel that it contains inappropriate content.


Opinion Sections

Carolyn Long Editorial Cartoons Editorials Jules Witcover Leonard Pitts Jr. Letters to the Editor Linda Ash Mary Sanchez Paul Greenberg Reader Commentary

News | Sports | Business | Lifestyle | Obituaries | Opinion | Multimedia| Entertainment | Homes | Classifieds
Contact Us | NIE | Place a Classified | Privacy Policy | Subscribe

Copyright © The Northern Virginia Daily | nvdaily.com | 152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg, Va. 22657 | (800) 296-5137

Best Small Daily Newspaper in Virginia!

nvdaily.com | seeshenandoah.com