Get full context of coverage of political races

Some random thoughts on primary election coverage:

First and most important, you should know that our online report now includes an easy link to our coverage of all races, debates, endorsements and candidate biographies and questionnaires.

Click on the link at our Web site and you can find almost all our coverage for local, statewide and congressional and Senate campaigns. If you missed a story on a race you're following, you'll find it here, and the site will be continuously updated as our coverage continues through Election Day, Feb. 2.

The questionnaires provide an especially valuable tool for helping you vote. In all our coverage, we strive to give you a thorough and objective look at all the candidates and races, but that coverage always and necessarily comes through the prism of the reporters who produce it. The questionnaire responses do not. They are the candidates speaking in their own words - or those of someone on their staff writing for them, in some cases - on the issues they consider important.

The candidates don't point out their own shortcomings, of course, and they color their presentation in a way they hope will make them look best. But if you keep that in mind and read their comments critically and thoughtfully - as you should do with any news coverage, for that matter - you can get some important insights into the candidates' positions and qualifications.

You can also follow our endorsements through the link. I'm not sure what it means, but I've been asked this particular endorsement question more often this election cycle than at any time in the past: Can the paper do anything about candidates who were not endorsed using nice quotes about them out of context in their political advertising to leave the impression that they were endorsed?

The short answer is no. And, yes, this practice is annoying for us, as is any misleading advertising. But it does emphasize the importance of relying on more than just a candidate's advertising in determining your vote. Usually, candidates who are proud of our endorsement will say so specifically, so if you see us quoted with no mention of our endorsement, you may want to check out the Web site to see the full context of what we said.

In writing our endorsements, we strive to make a reasoned and balanced presentation about the race that explains why we favor who we do, and in the process we may want to point out that our preference comes even though some competitors may bring certain strengths to a campaign. We think this is a more positive and broad-based approach to editorial writing. You should just be sure to remember that, though we may mention one candidate's appeals, it's the overall strengths of the endorsed candidate that swayed us the most.

Finally, a quick observation about word use. I've noted with interest a certain candidate's radio advertising that ends with a mention of his commitment to "reform." This from a candidate for a seat that no one - even in Illinois - has suggested is tainted at the end of a pitch that never once mentioned anything wrong with the way the office has been run. It just reminded me of how political candidates seem to think that certain words are literally magical in delivering votes.

Reform. Change. Experience. Integrity. Responsibility. To be sure, words can be powerful political tools, but it's important to remember they can also be misleading.

Just one more reason why you may want to go to our Web site right after you see or hear an advertisement to get a fuller picture of what a candidate stands for.

Jim Slusher, jslusher11@comcast.net, is an assistant managing editor at the Daily Herald.