Here are some notes on this primary election season written before the outcome of the contest:

One of my staff members said she doesn’t think newspapers should offer endorsements of candidates. I was heartened by her unsolicited comment, as I don’t believe that is part of our mission.

 Newspaper endorsements are practically as old as newspapers here in this country. The premise is that reporters, editors and publishers know more about the candidates and the races than the potential voters. You may insert your favorite expression of disagreement here.

While that actually may be true in some cases, it does not justify an often-anonymous announcement in a newspaper instructing readers to vote in any particular way.

Our job is to present information to the voters so they can make a decision for themselves. This primary season we have tried to do that with numerous pieces about candidates in various races.

Traditionally candidates come before a board of editors and are interviewed in order for an endorsement to be determined. I’ve spoken to candidates who believed their interview was predetermined.

This has been a very odd election season because of the pandemic. The hallmarks of the traditional campaign have been muted by social distancing and restrictions on the size of audiences for events. “Pressing the flesh” is something candidates do usually, but have not this year.

I’m sure some candidates would have appreciated an endorsement from this paper, but here is the other practical side to the endorsement game: pick the wrong candidate and you will create an enemy.

I would rather get someone upset because my staff and I did our jobs as reporters – and believe me that has happened lately – than in the course of playing politics.

To be clear, I don’t criticize those papers that wish to make endorsements. It’s just not part of our editorial package here.

I realize there have undoubtedly been plenty of open slots for political advertising on local television as ads representing local businesses have decreased during the pandemic and as you know nature – and candidates – abhors a vacuum.

So I’ve been playing a game – trying to guess what would come next. I’m watching a “nice” Alex Morse commercial that presents his narrative of a working class family in Holyoke and at the end I guessed what would come next. A “nice” ad from Richard Neal about his background or about what he has done for the district? Or would it be a “nasty” ad attacking Morse? Or a “nasty” ad attacking Neal? Or another “nice” ad?

They were often ganged up one after another to the point until I had practically memorized them.

Neal has a record of not running attack ads. Morse’s political action group supporters started the war. The Neal’s camp and supporters fired back.

The same ads were also on social media. You could not escape them.

The level of the rhetoric grew to be quite venomous. The question is whether or not this approach was successful will be seen on Election Day.

In the Markey-Kennedy race the issue of “being there” came to the forefront. Senator Edward Markey was accused of not being in Massachusetts enough and especially not being in Western Massachusetts enough.

It’s a false issue.

How often does Elizabeth Warren show up here? Once or twice a year? In a town hall meeting at which much of the time is dedicated to taking selfies?

How about the late Ted Kennedy?

He didn’t turn up much either. As a kid I remember the local press making a big deal of he and his family turning up at the old Mt. Tom ski area.

It’s the nature of the position, representing an entire state that leads to limited visibility. Is it ideal? No. Is it the reality in which we must live? Yes.

If Kennedy wins – I’m writing this column on Aug. 28 – he must stick to the campaign promise of being present in all parts of the Commonwealth. That will be interesting to watch.