Reporting Tailored News

The definition of news basically says any new information is news. In an election many peoples' jobs are to generate news. They do this mostly by making allegations about others. But here is where an interesting dilemma happens that is best illustrated by an example. Recently this came out: 6th paragraph. In it Kerry states the vice president had 5 deferments for his military service. The news is what Kerry said (and he did say that), but is it true? The facts are slow to catch up to the constant barrage of new news. So something is said and that's the news but whether it is: a blatant lie, a twisting of the truth (though clever wording) or true isn't know when the news breaks. By the time the facts catch up the message is already perceived as truthful (human nature) since it was heard soo many times. This means most of the stuff said in campaigns is said to twist public opinion fully knowing as long as something else is said before the facts catch up the public won't notice. That's why they keep firing allegations so often. If they stop the truth may come out.

A prime example is when the report was issued saying terror was down. All Republican stood up and said it was because of them and Bush. But when it was revealed to be a mistake and terror was up, well that's not the Republican's fault!

So what do you do: report everything and hope the public catches on (ha!)? Do you only report the statements that can be verified and publish their accuracy with the statement (in which case you'd be censoring until you verified the statement)?
In the U.K. the BBC have reporters who will jump on people who make false claims and not let them get away with false statements once the truth is known, but the U.S. media sponsors the Republican party (see the Simpsons: Krusty for Congress... and this funny story and G.W. Bush and Words or Conventional Wisdom). So what do the Americans do?