The role of presidential nomination conventions has changed over time, from selecting to anointing the party's nominee for the presidency. The amount of news coverage has decreased as the suspense surrounding the identity of the nominee disappeared. Nevertheless, nomination acceptance addresses are watched by millions. Approximately one-quarter of the electorate decide their presidential vote during the conventions1 and the candidates' acceptance addresses are the convention's climax.2Many others do not watch the speeches themselves; they learn about it via other channels and those who do watch may have their impressions of the candidates altered by later news accounts. The question of how accurately newspapers report on these campaign events has yet to be addressed. We know that campaign coverage focuses on the following:...the strategic game played by the candidates in their pursuit of the presidency, thereby de-emphasizing the questions of national policy and leadership.3Farnsworth and Lichter reported that horse race coverage increased from 58 percent of stories in 1988 to 71 percent in 2000. Jamieson, Waldman and Devitt observed:...in every presidential general election since 1960 reliance on news reports for information about the campaign would lead one to conclude that it contained a far higher level of attack than was in fact the case.5However, no research has investigated acceptance addresses to see how well this generalization applies in this message form. Nor has research investigated whether news reports of acceptances accurately reflect the topics (policy, character) of these speeches.Theoretical FrameworkThe functional theory of political campaign discourse holds that campaign discourse is instrumental rather than consummatory.6 Because a vote is basically a choice between two or more competing candidates, voting decisions can be seen as a judgment of which candidate is preferable. Accordingly, a candidate's goal is to persuade enough voters that he or she is preferable to other candidates for office. This goal is accomplished through messages, which can enact one of three functions. First, candidates may acclaim their own virtues.7 They may acclaim their desirable policy positions (past accomplishments, future plans or goals) or their positive characteristics (personal qualities, leadership abilities or ideals). second, candidates can attack an opponent. Attacks may also address alleged weaknesses or liabilities in an opponent's policy or character, therefore making the target appear less desirable to voters. Third, when candidates are subjected to attacks, they may defend against accusations. If a candidate can dissipate an attack, the candidates' lost desirability should be restored.For example, in the 2000 election, Gov. George W. Bush used this acclaim in his acceptance address:No one in America should have to pay more than a third of their income to thefederalgovernment, so we will reduce tax rates for everyone in every bracket.This proposal is likely to appeal to many voters, increasing Bush's desirability. Attacks also occur in these speeches. Vice President Al Gore's acceptance asserted that Bush's tax cut would benefit the wealthy at the expense of others. This attack could diminish Bush's desirability for voters who did not favor tax cuts that benefit the rich. Defenses are rare but do occur in acceptances. In 1996, for instance, Dole responded to accusations that he was a compromiser, one who lacked principles:And to those who believe that I live and breathe compromise, I say that in politics, honorable compromise is no sin; it is what protects us from absolutism and intolerance.This utterance rejects this criticism. If accepted by the audience, this defense should help restore some or all of the desirability lost from the attack.These three functions can occur on two discrete topics: policy and character. Gore discussed successes of the Clinton/Gore administration:Instead of the biggest deficits in history, we now have the biggest surpluses, the highest home ownership ever, the lowest inflation in a generation, and instead of losing jobs, we now have 22 million good new jobs, higher family incomes. …