Isn't it nice that the incumbents can use their county provided websites to campaign, and that Patch is here to direct us to them

Hi Ed,

I just wanted to step in to assure you that the number of hyperlinks in our primary stories are in no way an indication of any bias. We work hard - like any other journalism organization - to be unbiased. And in the instances where we provided hyperlinks to the non campaign sites -- the intent was to provide additional information to our readers - not a biased effort to influence readers. In addition, any advertising you see on the site has nothing to do with our editorial content -- as is the case in any other journalism organization. The ads are reflective of whoever decided to advertise with us.

If one is going to say they're "not with either party", you should make sure that you're not seen making comments usually bashing liberals and/or Democrats.
And if one's going to go off on (another) ridiculous & baseless rant insinuating bias, you should bring some documented evidence to support it (what one "believes" or draws a "conclusion" because they have nothing better to do is NOT evidence, just for clarity) . You should also learn how advertising works. Ads are generally PAID for. And if more democratic candidates/PAC's buy ads than Republican, then that's how it is. That has NOTHING to do with bias (advertising is a separate dept.).
I've worked in this industry for almost 2 decades and constantly laugh at people who love to claim or insinuate bias, but bring absolutely no proof to the claim. Most of the time, it just demonstrates they don't know what they're talking about and/or don't agree with it, so, the play the 'bias card.' So what if Patch linked up the incumbents to the county site?
Candidates (like Bevan-Walsh, Pry, for example) can not use the county site for fundraising/campaigning. I consider Patch doing a service by providing this basic information. As usual--and sadly--there are some who can take a basic article about who's running and turn it into a problem (with credit from "A Charlie Brown Christmas").
Get over yourself.

The story gave a list of who was on the ballot, great thank you patch for providing us with that information.
But, if you want to reach the voters through the web you have to create a website and pay for its hosting, unless of course you can have the county provide you one at the taxpayers’ expense. Those links should not have been published.
Just my opinion , Had the county link only had contact info and office hours fine, But the bio’s and the photo albums put the pages in a different category placed in this context. It’s just my observation not a baseless rant (I save those for my front porch)
In the future I will keep my comments to my self and let the pro’s fill the blogs. Sorry for sharing my thoughts in public it won’t happen again

Mr. Helbig,
"If one is going to say they're "not with either party", you should make sure that you're not seen making comments usually bashing liberals and/or Democrats." If this is the standard you hold to then what would you say to Patch blogger Patrick Giusto who insists that he is not a Democrat but spends his articles denigrating all things Republican? I believe the statistical evidence that Mr. Kent cited on the number of links by party would probably have been enough to justify a lawsuit if this had been in the arena of employment law. As for the ad buy industry I bow to your experience, but as for candidates not being able to use their official sites for elections; well there's campaigning and then there's campaigning, which as an advertising professional I am sure you know. Lastly, I think Mr. McFalls also makes a legitimate "damned if you do/don't" argument.