This isn’t just a good-journalism issue; it should be a practical issue, too. There is, at a basic level, a reason to cover stump speeches. It’s helpful for people to know what politicians are saying—not just in an “accountability” way, but also because, in their speeches, the politicians are conveying information about what they stand for. Even in a pseudo-event that offers little to no policy substance, there’s signaling going on, and signaling can guide voter choice.

But there is no good reason for modern-day news outlets to make stump speeches the primary focus of their campaign coverage. On a strictly competitive level, it makes no sense for a site to offer the exact same thing that every other site offers. News outlets around the world are scrambling for ways to differentiate themselves from their competitors, to convince a skeptical reader to click on their link rather than someone else’s. The best way to build a dedicated following for your publication is to offer something that your competitors don’t have. Everyone has rote, by-the-book campaign reporting. But you can differentiate yourself by getting off the trail and doing something different. Let the wire services report on the speeches and the hand-shaking. Send your reporters off to do things that your readers can’t get anywhere else.

Though Super Tuesday is over and done with, the race for the GOP presidential nomination continues. The longer the campaign lasts, the more frantic it will become for the media; the campaign stops will continue to spread out, the rhetoric will continue to heighten. The bad habits formed during primary season will, if anything, only get worse in the runup to the November general election. Let’s try to fix them before it’s too late.

Justin Peters is editor-at-large of the Columbia Journalism Review.