They question government - local, state and federal - and hope to find an answer to better inform the public.

I don't want to gripe, but when I recently heard about a supposed agenda behind news stories that were published during the election campaign period, I couldn't help but jump to the defence of a fellow journalist, even though I had never met them.

I don't speak for all reporters or editors; and the proof is in the pudding that some newspapers do publish sensationalised stories.

However, I do want to speak for all my fellow journalists who spend hours trawling through documents trying to uncover a lead that has been buried, and those who attempt to make a difference with the stories they share.

The "offending" news stories were about preference deals for Shooters, Fishers and Farmers and Labor parties.

It was topical, in part, because of recent harrowing events in Christchurch.

Media analysts and debaters were in a froth and frenzy, but for what purpose?

Preference deals are age-old.

Was the news actually relevant or was it just to cast doubt into the minds of voters and to which way the polls would be swinging?

However, various parties antagonised the debate and candidates, who began picking up on the battle. My email inbox began to be filled with the various comment on the scandal. This was after the NSW opposition leader commented on the individual candidates' choice of preferences.

The political beast reared its ugly and somewhat shameful head.

Many of the emails that were received across many media titles during the campaign included the words in their titles such as 'racism', 'fears', 'double fudge', 'hanging farmers out to dry', or 'scams'.

It's as if some of them didn't make it out of the playground.

Perhaps we should leave these words behind for the forthcoming federal election and have serious debate and discussion in a time that involves critical analysis.

It is the future of our country that our readers, as voters, are deciding upon. Let no politician fill that future with fear.