As the 2006 election date nears, the emotions get hotter and hotter. Who is spouting half-truths and who is telling the unvarnished truth. The words flow out from both sides of the same mouth and many times the candidate tries to be on both sides of the same issue.

How can the concerned voter determine in the media, which TV broadcast, which newspaper column or which speech is the pure, unadulterated, genuine, authentic delivery of the events?

At this point three journalistic words come into play:

1) Objectivity - Perfect objectivity is not something that is easily detected in human beings. Just because someone has a microphone in his/her hand, or a press card dangling from his/her neck, does not guarantee unbiased reporting. The network, TV, radio station or the newspaper has a definite point of view. This makes it difficult to get pure, unslanted reporting on political issues.

2) Fairness - Fairness concedes the point that a slant may be evident in the news item, but it demands that the reporter not overstress his/her viewpoint and try to mislead and sully the opposition. Fairness is also not easily accomplished.

3) Balance - This is an attempt to get the views of both sides (or many sides) of an issue or differences of opinion made open and clear to the public.

Labels should be avoided in reportage. Calling someone a Liberal or Conservative should be avoided. This is true definitely of the word "Ultra" placed in front of these two points of view.

As the speeches are given and the posters hung on lampposts, we must use superior judgment in determining who is being objective, who is being fair and who is presenting a balanced viewpoint.

Handsome looks or glibness of tongue is not always a great barometer of good intentions and truth. Dig for the facts!

Vote wisely!