As E-Day creeps closer, the political press seems to be a bit confused as to how to handle these last few days of campaigning. And understandably so—it’s been a long campaign, and at times it seems like everything that can be said has been said. Nevertheless, there’s a news hole to fill, and many publications have decided to fill it by reporting (and I use that term generously, in some instances) on the candidate’s endgame stump speeches.

Two examples stick out in particular: one from the AP, the other from the Dallas Morning News.

On Monday, the AP’s Beth Fouhy took a closer look at McCain’s latest stump speech. While Fouhy credits McCain for a “well crafted speech, with stirring references to McCain’s five and a half years as a prisoner war of Vietnam and his plans for the nation,” she’s quick to note that “he goes off track when it comes to Obama’s policies.”

Fouhy goes on to recap and clarify the candidates’ stances on some important issues, in a good example of the AP’s new focus on “accountability reporting.” The press can’t be afraid to counteract misleading or inaccurate political rhetoric, as CJR and others have argued ad nauseam over the past eighteen months. Fouhy sets the record straight on Obama’s health care plan:

McCain’s central claim — that people will be “forced” into a new government-run plan under an Obama presidency — is not true. In fact, Obama broke with many Democrats and others who advocate universal coverage when he announced his plan would be mandatory only for children, and voluntary for everyone else. Obama would allow those who want to keep their current employer-based health insurance to do so. Rather than requiring everyone to purchase coverage, Obama’s plan is designed to bring down costs — make insurance more affordable so as many people as possible would choose to buy it.

This type of reporting is invaluable, regardless of what stage of the election we’re in. Simply regurgitating the candidates’ speeches or casually mentioning their well-rehearsed stump recitals does little for voters. While political junkies may think all the facts have been squared away, one would be surprised, for example, at the number of voters still convinced that Obama is a Muslim. If inaccuracies like that still permeate the public, it’s clear our job isn’t yet finished.

Another stump speech piece worth mentioning is the advice from editorial columnist William McKenzie, of the Dallas Morning News. In a two-part series, McKenzie decided to help Obama and McCain by letting them know what they should be saying.
For the most part, McKenzie’s advice would do little to persuade undecided voters. Merely name-dropping Senator Kennedy is unlikely to snag a vote, nor will this:

And those who would do us harm should know this: I will never back down from a fight, if a fight is what you wish. If we work together, though, we need not fight. We can live with our differences, instead of letting them lead us into bloodshed.

(That was your cue, Obama.)

While his advice for Obama has limited value, McKenzie does have a few valid points. Here’s one:

Let me say more about Senator McCain. He’s shown me what it takes to work across the aisle. And that is, you must be willing to make your own party mad.

According to McKenzie, it’s “essential” that Obama include his intentions to work across party lines as opposed to attacking the GOP. While Obama may be highlighting how Americans have worked together during these challenging economic times, he doesn’t mention his own commitment to encouraging such cooperation in Washington. It’s hard to say if that’s necessary to commit voters, but it’s a reasonable proposal.

When it comes to McCain, McKenzie’s advice is far from novel: lighten up on the defense.

Megan McGinley is an intern at CJR.