It’s election season, and that’s just as exciting at the letters desk as, say, elk season for bow hunters. Though the flow of letters we’re receiving is tame compared with last year’s election campaign and tamer compared with what we’ll see throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, it’s decidedly picked up.

There’s good reason for it, too; ballots are in voters’ hands now. It’s now or never for city council, school board and mayoral candidates. Vast campaign structures loom behind the 200-word missives that finally make their way into our inbox and onto the Roundtable page.

The staff of the S-R Opinion pages has often pondered and discussed the best way to handle letters during election seasons. It isn’t just that we sometimes tire of hearing meaningless talking points slung back and forth between campaigns; readers also have mentioned that they just skip over the letters that look like election plugs.

I encourage our readers not to skip these letters, even if they have already submitted their ballots. These letters are some of the most useful for learning to read opinions advantageously. Just remember a few caveats when perusing this page in any season.

First, understand that by definition, “objectivity” stops at the borders of the Opinion pages. You reasonably expect neutrality, balance and accuracy from news stories, but only accuracy is required in opinion material. Though we strive for proportional representation of what we receive when choosing which letters to print, balance is not required or even desirable within individual editorials, columns or letters.

Second, don’t confuse objectivity with accuracy. You could be unaware that we regularly receive letters that begin, as one did earlier this month, with, “It is unfortunate the Spokesman does not fact check letters.” We don’t print letters saying this for one two-pronged reason: (1) we do check facts in letters and (2) consequently it would be inaccurate to say that we don’t.

But fact checking, as I have said earlier, is a more limited province than some of our readers would like. They’d like us to police objectivity as well. In the above letter, which addressed Graeme Frost and SCHIP, the only fact offered in contradiction to the disputed letter was undocumented and found to be false. It was brought to the writer’s attention and a revised, accurate (but not objective) letter was printed the next day. It offered additional information that did support the writer’s view, just like the information offered in the first letter supported its own conclusion. Taken all together, of course, a more accurate – even, perhaps, a more objective – understanding of the issue could be formulated.

Take, as another example, one letter’s statement that Spokane firefighters’ “additional benefits will be paid with taxpayer dollars.” Factually, this cannot be disputed. Both pay and benefits for firefighters of course come from taxes at some remove, and the city will be an agent in paying for these benefits.

Several writers, however, have rightfully disputed the significance of this fact. Since the firefighters’ pension fund will reimburse the city for the cost of the benefits, they shouldn’t be the budget strain “taxpayer dollars” might imply. And though it is factual that Mary Verner voted to approve the awarding of the benefits and that she has received campaign contributions from firefighters, what these facts mean is open to debate among voters as well as candidates.

And when I say “open to debate,” I mean it. That’s what this forum is about. As long as facts are correct and interpretations (also known as opinions) are honestly presented as such, readers must judge for themselves, perhaps even seeking out supplemental facts that will lead them to a different interpretation. If such is the case, I hope those readers will share both the additional facts and the alternate interpretations.

Electing officials and representatives is one of the most important goals of the public discussion we foster here. I love the vigor and energy that comes through in the letters during every campaign. If readers apply the same vigor to testing editorial page material, the free press will succeed in its important role within self-government.

Caveat elector: Let the voter beware.