So, how has the online media done on this election? The BBC has reported unprecedented levels of traffic to its site this morning, but Paul Bradshaw has a good post up, suggesting that there's a degree of homogenisation amongst the online news outlets.
One of Computer Weekly's bloggers is claiming that It Was Twitter Wot Won It, but I'm not sure I agree. Pre-election, I found Twitter too much of an echo chamber, and I've seen both Labour and LibDem supporters acknowledging that overnight. I've actually found it more interesting in the last eight hours or so, for discussion of consequences, rather than as a bellwether for the likely result.
Personally, I got most of my news from the TV - the BBC in fact - only switching largely to the internet once I got into the office. How about you?
It was a TV election, and the campaigns will be remembered chiefly for the live debates (in a strange echo of the 1960 US presidential debates - it only took us 50 years to follow suit).
I would agree with Paul Bradshaw's wider comment on homegenisation of coverage.
Also, none of the parties seemed to harness social media in the way that Obama did in 2008.
It'll certainly be remembered for the debates, although they might end up as a footnote to the current chaos. And did they really have an impact? Cleggmania seemed to be the main result, and that failed to translate into votes.
Agreed about Obama, though. None of the parties were able to get their grass roots supporters involved online, like he did.