Slusher: Don't believe every word, but consider them all

Skeptical, not cynical. It's a distinction we emphasize a lot around the Daily Herald newsroom. And it's a pretty good axiom for you to keep in mind as the election campaign season descends. At the Daily Herald, we apply the two terms to all our reporting, not just political stories. We urge reporters to question everything and to keep their ears tuned for purported facts or phrases that seem bent -- if not invented outright -- to mislead.

But at the same time, we stress that it is both incorrect and a disservice to presume that every speaker pressing a political or social point of view is a liar or a manipulator. We can help readers sort out the truth without portraying the people who are doing the many and various things it takes to become community leaders, prominent citizens or advocates of a special interest as selfish schemers.

Likewise, it will be beneficial to you as you read stories about candidates, see letters to the editor about races or watch online and television advertising to remember that no candidate is all saint or all sinner. As fellow columnist Jim Davis reflected last Sunday, we get lots of opportunities this time of year for direct and pointed discussion with candidates for every office from water commissioner to U.S. senator or governor, and we see firsthand the sincere passions that drive good people of diverse points of view to try to make a difference. But there is something about a campaign process that generally amounts to a monthslong series of highly public job interviews that distort personalities and foments divisions, leaving observers with the impression that no one seeking a public position can be trusted. Those impressions then spill over into people's regular daily discourse and particularly become reflected in such venues as social media commentaries and print letters to the editor. It's not that the people urging you to vote or think a certain way are sneaky and underhanded; they're just trying to make their case in the most effective way they can think of.

I say, good for them. But don't trust them. Sometimes their views of the facts are suspect because they got their "facts" from a questionable source. Sometimes their statements are problematic because what one person regards with deep conviction to be fact another clearly recognizes as interpretation. And, sometimes, yes, they're deliberately misleading.

In the latter category, I believe such approaches count on your cynicism. You are primed to consider all candidates with suspicion, so campaigns that feed that cynicism encourage you to accept your preconceived decision about a candidate without more fully investigating.

Again, I say, don't trust them. Read the letters to the editor, sure. Write one if you're of a mind to. Participate, civilly of course, in online discussions. Even watch political ads. But take them all at least a step further.

Over the next several weeks, we will have a range of objective stories and analysis about candidates. We'll put their profiles online in their own words. We'll offer our own assessments through editorial endorsements. Don't believe every word. But do believe that when you consider all of the words -- or at least lots of them -- you can get a truer picture of the candidates who best represent your ideas and interests.

Be skeptical, not cynical. You may be surprised at how much more comfortable you'll become with the whole process.

Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is an assistant managing editor at the Daily Herald. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter .