CBC
Hong: Oddly enough, the website of Canada's biggest broadcast system, the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, decides not to put the election of its huge neighbour in the spotlight. The banner headline goes to its own federal election, which remains months away, to my knowledge.

The editors there, knowingly or not, even relegate the US election, a focus of world attention and a darling of worldwide press, to an embarassing third position, after author Margaret Atwood, whom a Chinese like myself does not know, winning the Booker Prize.

CBC's cold shoulder towards the US presidential election bewilders me, an editor for the online section of the English-language China Daily. One hour before I sat down doing this online watching work at the renowned Poynter Institute of Journalism, in a small beautiful sea resort town called St. Petersburg, I gave a comfort phone call to my staff still working in the early hours in Beijing, who are covering developments of the election on the other side of the Pacific. I just hope that the CBC will promote the US ''big news'' to the forefront, after either Al Gore and George W. Bush is announced the winner several hours from now.

My curiosity grows concerning CBC's decision: Does it think the US election is not that important, as compared to its own? Or, does the offshore shipping hassle several months ago which later led to a diplomatic woe between the two huge North American states have a role in its decision? CBC itself knows.

BBC
Harvey: Li, when I checked the site at 4 p.m. EST, I was able to easily find my way from the BBC home page to its special report on the U.S. elections: There was a prominent first-screen
blurb linking me to the package.

Here's what immediately caught my attention: The static photo/graphic of Vice President Al Gore's and Gov. George Bush's faces. My reaction: Perhaps a fresh photo from today's events would have been more arresting?

My eyes were then drawn to the color map of the United States, which promises to be clickable and give presidential election returns, state by state, along with those for seats in Congress at stake. Great feature. I plan to return to it frequently throughout the night, to see if it's working and how the race is unfolding.

I noticed the site is also promising audio and video to accompany text on the top story--it had posted those icons below the story summary. Unfortunately, the links weren't working when I clicked at 4:20 p.m. Disappointing. Perhaps I have a bad connection, or I've missed a step on how to retrieve this. Or perhaps these are features that will be posted after returns start coming in. Can't tell.

Some clicks into some of the top headlines brought more disappointment. The top story had a headline without an active verb: "White House Cliffhanger." That's a pet peeve. It didn't grab my attention or make me want to read on. It didn't tell me anything I haven't known for weeks.

Diving into the top story (text version), I was jarred by the lack of the writer's byline, or the source of the report. BBC, or wires? I've been trained as a reader of U.S. newspaper Web sites to look for these benchmarks. It helps me to judge how much credence to give the story.

The story itself did a fairly decent job of laying out what was at stake, in both the presidential contest and key states. It was sprinkled with a few bright graphics and photos and a helpful map. But the writing didn't sparkle.

Other quick thoughts: the quality of the photo page was poor. A sampling of the pictures: Bush on the phone. Gore standing in a school room auditorium, talking to seated children.

I did like the last pic: of a tiny voting station (a one-room school house?) in rural Kentucky.

But the layout of the photo page needed help, too. All the pics were the same size, stacked one below the other.

Eureka moment: Just found a link to launch the BBC's latest audio and video, in the red "Launch console" button on the top
right of this page. It immediately makes me feel much more positive about the site. Audio and video are waiting for me, reporting on Hillary's chances in New York.

Hong: Hi, Chris, I found, at this moment, BBC is leading its homepage with the US election thing. However, CBC stubbornly leads its home page and news section with its own coming general election.

Harvey: Hmm. I'm still seeing the U.S. election story in the third slot on the BBC home page, which I think is appropriate placement at this hour (5:30 p.m. Eastern time) for a non-U.S. site.

But you're right, CBC's disinterest seems odd. Maybe this will change soon.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the sites do in the next hour or two.

Hong, 7:14 p.m.: As I hoped when I finished my fast food dinner, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) web editors, whom I will credit as news-savvy guys, moved the US presidential election to the top rank, leading all other stuff, including the Toronto stock market and Canada's own upcoming general election. The headline, in bold banner, says ''IT'S CLOSE" -- US presidential race too close to call. It's eye-catching, and together with a rather spacious picture with Bush and Gore, is eye-alluring.

When the CBC site decides to do it, it does well. Immediately below the lead of that headline is live full-coverage focusing on the US election which is well prepared, backed up by a map of the 50 states with how many electoral college votes, and on the spot-coverage from several key places, including Austin, Texas, and Nashville, Tennessee. It also gives the readers a timetable of live coverage developments, which may be a convenience for clickers and lure them to come back when time is right.

To increase its interactivity with the readers, the CBC website, with the back-up of its radio and TV outlets in the United States, used some audio/video snapshots to lure the viewers. And, the CBC site has a special function column soliciting comments and opinions from the readers, with a sentence reading this way: On Tuesday, November 7, the Canadian Contest will be on pause as all eyes turn to the excitement south of the border. It's what happens when you live next door to the most powerful country in the world. I like the question specified by the CBC site: Who do you think will win the US Election? Who do you think would be better for Canada? That's something most Canadians care about!

Harvey, 7:04 p.m.: Li, I'm really loving the interactive, pop-up map on the home page. With a click and a glance, I can see at 6:40 that Indiana and Kentucky have already been colored purple, showing Bush has won the states.

When I click into one of the states--Kentucky--I learn the state has eight electoral votes, and that it went to Clinton in the last two elections. Easy to follow quickly. Good use of Web space. I've also found a link to an interactive "talking point." The question is uninspired: "What do you think of the outcome so far?" But I'm happy to see that there is a spot for regular folks to weigh in and vent. Already, some of the responses are heated: "If by 'best campaign' you mean 'least riddled with hypocrisy, vapidity, and bile," I'd have to say Al Gore. .." starts "Kenny" from the U.S.A. I'm betting this exchange will get even livelier a bit later. I'm also happy that there are other interactive options offered on this same page. Among them: A 10-question, multiple-choice quiz, to test my knowledge of the candidates.

There's a bit of wry British humor to reward me at the end: "Which of the following did Gore NOT claim to have done?" Love it! There are lots more options for immediate election gratification, including another map. This one highlights info on the influence of the Hispanic vote. Click on a state, such as Arizona, California or Texas, and get parochial stats. But here's the most fun map I've found. It explains that two intrepid reporters, Tom and Kevin, were sent on a "unique journey across the United States," to find out more about voter apathy, Bush's record as governor, Ralph Nader, swing voters and more. Click on a city visited, such as San Francisco, and get a text summary and a Webcast. It would have been a very fun to follow the duo's reports in the days leading up to the election... That's it for now, Chris

Harvey, 7:26 p.m.: Li, was the question you refer to at the bottom of your summary, asking which candidate would be better for Canadians, posed as a chat/discussion? Or was it a quick (multiple-choice) poll?

Hong, 7:09 p.m.: Chris, does BBC have a function column calling for COMMENTS about the US election from the audience? Li

Hong, 7:30 p.m.: Hi, Chris, after going through some of the messages back to the site, I think it mainly aims to trigger and collect the viwers' opinion on which candidate, Gore or Bush, they will prefer, even though the Canadians have no rights to vote in the elections in its neighbouring giant.

Harvey, 7:22 p.m.: Li, it sure does. One is the one described above (buried a bit in all my talk about maps!)--and called "talking points." There's also a separate link to a "live chat." This is a bit confusing. It seems to me these may actually be the same discussion, but linked twice... I'll explore this further later, after I file for this deadline!

Hong, 9:02 p.m.: As a non-English native born in a tiny poverty-stricken countryside in China's eastern Anhui Province 30 years ago, I began to learn English when I was 15. I am not in the position, whatsever, to assess the writing quality of a mainstream Western press, the website of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. As an online editor from Beijing for China Daily, I came here to learn, not to assess the works of the natives.

However, as an assignment ''demanded'' by the Poynter instructors, I will have to do it.

I thought the headlines on its main news section ''projections show Gore wins Florida, Michigan," updated at 20:30 ET, and its previous head, ''US presidential race too close to call,'' two hours earlier, is plain but conveys information well. I like the huge banner on the two better: ''IT'S CLOSE!'' Every word counts, that's what online heads demand.

I like the structure and flow of the CBC stories about the US election a great deal. The leads are clear, neat and commanding the whole smooth flow of the online writings, which are supported by reasonable analysis and background data wherever it is needed.

Here are some of the examples. ''Getting the vote out has become the siren call for all the candidate.'' It's really good for foreigners and at the same time English languge lovers like me. And, look at this one: ''Polling has also indicated that the nation that likes to see itself as the greatest democracy on earth will be lucky if half of the people eligible to vote bother to do so.'' It means turnout could be amazingly important.

As to analysis of the race, I think sometimes it will prove to be the pivotal part of any piece, online or print. The following sentence gives readers a clear-cut picture of the two candidates and their allure to voters, ''Personality and likeability have overshadowed real issues in the presidential race. Gore is seen as having a better platform and understanding of issues such as health care that Americans care about. But Bush is considered the more likable candidate.''

To foreigners like me, sometimes background information about the US election system could be an immense help: ''Voters in 50 states and the District of Columbia select 538 representatives to the Electoral College, which in turn votes for the president. A presidential candidate needs a majority of 270 electoral votes to win.''

Harvey, 9:03 p.m.: Li, Before I plunge into this question, I have to note: The BBC's home page is now leading with the U.S. elections, both in its main story summary and its top "Latest Bulletin" headline.

That said, I'll plunge into the site's headlines. I'd really like to see some that are more descriptive and active. "And the winner is..." leads the page. Click on this, and you get: "Neck and neck for White House"

And elsewhere:

• "In pictures, America votes"
• "The choice Americans face"
• "Huge menu for US voters" and, this gem (ahem);
• "Bush's drink-driving: Will it matter?" (A mistake, or a British-ism?)

These heads make me long for a good, cheeky front-page banner from the New York Post!

But I realize that headline writing is only a tiny piece of the presentation. In scanning some of the stories, I'm left with the initial impression that the writing is functional, but not dazzling. Here are the top two paragraphs on the 8:45 p.m. (Eastern time) lead on the BBC's top presidential story:

"Millions of Americans are voting in the tightest US presidential election for 40 years, with all eyes on a handful of key states.

Of the so-called battleground states to close their polls, Florida and Michigan have been called for Democratic Vice-President Al Gore - a major boost for his hopes of capturing the White House. "

The sentences telegraph the news quickly, but without much polish. (But it's about what I'd expect for a developing story, written hastily on tight deadlines.) That said, the news in this lead seems a bit behind the curve of what some of the U.S. media were describing at the same time: MSNBC was reporting, for instance, that Bush had locked in 130 electoral votes, to Gore's 123, of the 270 needed to win...

Chris Harvey

Harvey, 9:20 p.m.: Li, you made some good points about the need for concise writing, background and context--both for the sake of readability and to assist readers from around the world in making sense of what this all means. (Global readership on the Web is a given, of course.)

Would you say overall that these stories gave you enough context and background? Or would you have liked to have seen more? Chris

Harvey, 9:39 p.m.: Li, I'm not surprised you had trouble figuring out what story might lie behind the headline, "Huge menu for US voters." It doesn't tell you a lot, does it? The deck/subhead helps: "With so many elections in the US on 7 November, Claire Bolderson asks - are voters overwhelmed?"

But the very long "anecdote" (and I use that term liberally here) at the top of the story compounds the problem. The story starts like this: "I stood in the queue at the smoothie bar trying to stifle a rising panic. It was nearly my turn to order and I could not decide." Say what?? It's not until the seventh paragraph that the writer tells you what the story is about--that Americans "will be asked to vote on much more than a new president."

Unless forced to read this, I wouldn't have made it past the lead.

On a medium where every word counts, a lot were wasted here.

But I don't want to end on such a sour note. There's a whole lot to like about the BBC site. Interactivity, as I noted earlier, is quite informative and sometimes welcomingly amusing. And the audio is lovely.

I like having video to click on, too, even though, like on other Web sites, the quality is poor. Movements are herky-jerky; faces are often blurred. Or worse--green!--as Gore's was in one clip.

I will be coming back to this site, though. It's got a clean design and easy-to-follow navigation.

And I'm a sucker for a British accent. Signing off, Chris Harvey

Hong, 9:25 p.m.: Oh, Chris, Yes, the main pieces on the homepage of CBC, which are promptly updated, backed up by some surrounding data, did give me enough context and background information about the vote. One thing, I think, should catch attention of the site editors, that is, when you update breaking news like the US election, one must be careful that too many overlapping stories, a result of updating on the previous piece, could make some online readers think other way: that the site is not keeping itself sufficiently neat.