Salon.com
Gula: Hi Borzou,

Take a look at Salon.com when you get a chance. I enjoyed reading this site because it tells so many stories about the election, rather than reciting statistics and beating to death stories that every other news site is covering.

In particular, check out the excellent Election 2000 guide. Salon.com offers printable scorecards broken down by time zone. It gives a synopsis of what to look for in each time zone, the electoral vote stakes by state, and the hot Senate and House races.

I enjoyed how the features on Bush and Gore talk about the mood of each campaign and give me insight on why each campaign has reached this point.

Salon.com also offers lists of articles a political junkie would be interested in, such as an index of political ad reviews. It has packaged its Goofus and Gallant series, stories on the presidential candidates, and stories on the environment and death penalty. Audio feeds also are available.

Criticism: Salon says it offers "continuous election returns, breaking news and analysis." However, it seems to rely on the wire for its real-time election coverage and I could not find time-stamps on the stories. All had datelines, but I could not tell how "real-time" the coverage actually was.

While I was looking at the site, it updated with two fresh stories on the politics page. That was the only way I knew I was getting new stories. That makes me want to check out other sites.

Also, the site has the same story listed twice on the main politics page. Oops.

Slate.com
Daragahi: Hi Lori,

Not much in the way of innovative interactive gizmos at Slate.com, which tries to bring its chatty literary style ( some might call it, gossip) to the elections.

The homepage promises, "Who's winning?" But at 4 p.m., Slate included no such articles or features. Kind of a bummer. The site instead links to WSJ.com writer John Fund's "hour-by-hour" Political Diary, which reads like it was written Sunday evening.

It's about me today The centerpiece of today's coverage, however, is the "How we voted feature," brief comments on how and why "Slatesters" voted today (Big surprise: Gore wins). Certainly, some may find this sort of exercise a tad self-indulgent. I mean, what's next? What family squabbles ŒSlatesters' had during Thanksgiving dinner? But I wondered whether they simply couldn't find a sexy enough batch of second-rate celebrities to discuss their presidential preferences.

On the other hand, a lot of journalists hide behind the cloak of political anonymity, and here the writers put their positions out for everyone to see. The package comes with editor Michael Kinsley's explanation of why the fact that Gore wins among the staffers doesn't mean Slate is biased: "Š[T]there are so many other pressures and prejudice built into the news-including occasional overcompensation for fear of appearing biased-that raw political bias plays a fairly small role."

Cheap Shots! But two last-minute pieces of anti-Bush dirt don't do much to bolster Kinsley's argument:

• "Is George W. Bush Barred
  From Canada?" -- about whether the Texas Governor's drunk-driving conviction prevents him from getting a visa to the Great White North.
• "Could Bush stage a coup?" -- a conversation between Paul Burka, of the Texas Monthly and Walter Shapiro, of USA Today, about what Dubya would do if he won the popular vote but lost the electoral college count.

Kind regards,
Borzou

Daragahi: Hi Lori, I should mention first off that I've been reading Salon.com for a long time. It's a Web site that tries to be kind of a daily updated Harper's or New Yorker, a sort of high-minded literary publication for the Web. Like Salon.com it's more about commentary from folks like David Horowitz or Joe Conason and reporting from a handful of correspondents like Jake Tapper than about real-time news. They promise perspective and context rather than late-breaking news.

Like Slate, its "Election Guide 2000" looks like it could have been tossed off a few days ago. It looks like most of their reporters have decided to sleep in during the morning and afternoon in anticipation of a long harrowing night.... expect fresher, cooler copy as the evening progresses.

To me sites like Salon and Slate really shine a day or two or week after a big breaking news event has happened. Their commentary on the Lewinsky scandal, though biased toward Clinton, was groundbreaking, with some of the most colorful and exciting prose I've seen in any publication -- offline or online.

Kind regards,
Borzou

Gula: Hi Borzou,

Good points. I don't read Salon.com regularly, but what I've seen tonight, I've enjoyed. I feel as if I'm reading stories, not just "accounts" of the political campaign. I'll have to keep an eye on the site after the election. I love good writing, particularly on the Web. Let me know if there are other sites you'd recommend.

Take care,
Lori

Gula:Greetings Borzou,

Interesting. After receiving your mail, Slate actually updated with two stories above the "Who's winning?" feature. However, one was a link to an MSNBC story on heavy voter turnout. As a surfer, I'd be tempted to switch to the MSNBC.com page.

Slate also posted "Don't Rush Me! (Part 9)," but I didn't get a lot out of it because I've already voted. By this point in the election, I'm focused on the polls and who's leading, not some guy who's telling me he's still hasn't decided for whom to vote.

I did enjoy "What Are Exit Polls?" by Emily Yoffe. I thought that was a nice story to do on Election Day.

Talk to you later.

Daragahi: Hi Lori,

Thanks! You pointed out a couple things I hadn't noticed before. Let me dive back in and check 'em out and then I'll continue... Okay, I'm back.

I liked Mickey Kaus's "Don't Rush Me!" series, sort of a good-natured rant about being an undecided voter directed at no one and everyone in particular. "I was getting ready to go vote for Gore, when I had a pro-Bush thought in the shower." Dude just seems somewhat irritated.

Kind regards,
Borzou

Gula:Greetings Borzou,
I'm enjoying reading the stories on Salon.com, but as far as interactivity goes, I'm not find much ground broken here. I think of interactivity as:
• Ways for readers to interact with the site and its reporters through such options as chat rooms, bulletin/message boards and e-mail.
• Tools that allow the reader to experience the story other than through reading the traditional news story.

The site offers several political bulletin boards, but I couldn't find a live chat on this election night. I think something similar to what the www.washingtonpost.com offers with its live chats would work well here.

Election reports via MP3 audio files is kind of cool, but only one is listed for Election Day. It'd be nice if Salon would let us listen to reaction or comments as the night goes on.

Salon has an appealing photo of a Virginia voter to lead its page, but it's no more than I would expect from any other news site. The site also includes a link to send Letters to the Editor at the end of each story, but, again, it's what everyone seems to do.

The site's strength clearly is its writing and storytelling.

-- Lori

Daragahi: Hi Lori,

Like I was saying, Slate.com has little in the way of cool tools fully utilizing the interactive capacity of the web, blah, blah, blah. It does have MySlate, sort of a personal folder of articles you can keep on your hard drive. Editor Michael Kinsley, in an advertorial, says that the idea came from the head of Bill and Melinda Gates' charity foundation; she likened it to "a shopping cart like Amazon, so I can go through Slate saving articles I want to read."

MySlate's "Listen" function uses text-to-speech technology so you can play audio versions of any story you're reading. "It's not great, frankly," Kinsley admits, "but it's fun." So I gave it a shot. The spooky synthetic voice makes HAL sound like a touchie-feelie kinda guy. But it was pretty fun.

A note: You've gotta register to get a "Passport" from Microsoft to gain access to MySlate.

The Fray, Slate's discussion threads, appear to be closely linked to individual columns. They avoid the general-interest political free-for-alls some message boards become. And at least during my cursory glances, I couldn't seem to locate much back and forth between the message board participants. I think political message boards are kind of tiresome, anyway. They just seem to provide a platform for anonymous yahoos to mouth off. "Though the votes haven't been counted," writes some guy with the handle, Some Guy, "it looks like the Socialists are going to win this round."

Oh, the site search engine appears to work pretty well, although, for the life of me, I can't seem to find that "Exits Polls Explained" article you were tellin' me about.

Kind regards,
Borzou

Gula: Hola Borzou,

Interesting that you can't find the exit poll story via the search engine. It's the topic of what seems to be a column called "Explainer." But the site certainly should be able to find it.

Did you see the Electoral Maps section under the politics area? It's on the left rail of the site. It's a nice feature, even though the maps actually are on other sites such as Fox News (very cool) and New Republic. The producers there, though, might want to periodically check on these links because the Politics.com map really stinks.

-- Lori

Daragahi: Hi Lori,

Yeah, I think Slate actually has more interactive tools than Salon, and that ain't sayin' much! Your suggestion for some sort of interaction between the site and readers other than message boards is cool. But I'm not so sure. I remember when Salon's rightwing columnist David Horowitz used to respond to people on the message boards and he got inundated with so many nasty comments, he stopped posting.

One of the things I've always loved about Salon has been the comics, especially the highly political full-color weekly strip by Tom Tomorrow. How about some flash animation cartoons next?

Thanks for veering the conversation toward coming up with new ideas instead of just critiquing the websites.

Kind regards,
Borzou

Gula: Borzou,

You may be right on target with those message boards. I've seen similar attacks on the Yahoo message boards. Not very useful for the serious reader.

I missed the cartoons! What was I thinking?

-- Lori

Daragahi:Hi Lori,

You're right, the links to the five electoral maps (on the politics home) is a good idea, giving you a chance to compare different news outlets' analyses.

Yay!!! It took a while but I finally found that Emily Yoffe "Explainer" column on exit polling.

Thanks,
Borzou

The pieces on Bush and Gore are more than just election previews. They provide insight and perspective on both campaigns: the political personality clashes, the exhaustion, the elation. The descriptions are so colorful. My only criticism is that at times, they seem to ease into more opinion than I prefer, but overall, I enjoy the lively writing.

For example, in Salon, Alicia Montgomery writes about Gore: Seeming exhausted, he stumbled through his remarks, pausing more than once to find his place. He listed the accomplishments of the Clinton administration like an uncertain waiter listing the specials of the day. "We have the most diverse ... self-government in the history ... of our nation," he stammered, and he mentioned that "we now have the lowest African-American unemployment in the history of the United States" without a hint of verve. The surging surplus, the tripling stock market, the raised standard of living: They all ran together in the tuneless hum of Gore's speech.

I don't know about you, but when I read this, I feel tired.

In Salon, Jake Tapper writes about Bush: Bush's serene demeanor this morning provides a stark contrast to the preening, mugging cockiness exhibited by his staff, most notably chief strategist Karl Rove, but also a handful of lower-level staffers who have become insufferable.

When I read this, I picture exactly what the writer is talking about. It's like watching a movie of the Bush campaign in my mind.

Like you said before, breaking news isn't Salon.com's strength. Early in the evening it updated with a three-graph story on Bush taking the first 20 electoral votes. When, I don't know, because there is no time-stamp. But the story is so short and doesn't tell me any more than I could find on CNN or another online news site.

It seems to be relying on the Associated Press for its election coverage, which seems like a smart move. Clearly, the site's strength is its more in-depth writing.

Writers trying to develop their own "voice" should read this site. Even though Salon's stories may push the boundaries of length when it comes to online writing, the voice, tone and humor of the stories kept me reading to the end.

-- Lori

Daragahi: Hi Lori, OK, now this is where Slate and Salon can really shine."My phone is ringing nonstop with the latest exit poll numbers," wrote Jacob Weisberg, in "Exit Poll Madness," posted at 3:30 p.m. today. "My inbox is spilling over with them. But because Slate has agreed not to publish this data under the threat of a lawsuit from the Voter News Service (VNS), I can't share them with you."

I love the nuanced approach they bring to political writing. "In many ways Gore is an awful candidate," Michael Brus, writes in the "How Slatesters Voted" package. "He's too beholden to the elderly to reform Social Security, too beholden to the teachers' unions to reform education, and too beholden to various interest groups to simplify the tax code. His campaign has been based on fear and cheap populism." But believe it or not, Brus ends up endorsing Gore!

But were they able to bring their brand of wit to readers in Internet time? Sadly, unfortunately, they seem to have abdicated the evening to coverage piped in from CNN and MSNBC, with Chris Suellentrop writing summaries of stories culled from around the Web.

Slate sparks some chuckles with a big headline on its home page screaming "Dewey Defeats Truman," satirizing the Chicago Tribune's horrible 1948 page-one mistake. But we've yet to see any time-sensitive online literary writing about the election. Come on guys! Hurry up and spew out some fun stuff!

Kind regards,

Borzou

Gula: Borzou,
I'm not sure what kind of readership they would get from the die-hard political junkies tonight who likely have every television on in the house on a different channel, and are getting streaming video over their high-speed DSL or cable lines. It's a tough call. Slate and Salon hook people with their slicing stories, but is tonight the night people want to read it?

I was just checking out the message boards for Jacob Weisberg's "Exit Poll Madness." Frankly, I became disinterested quickly and started checking out the ads on the right rail.

-- Lori

Daragahi: Hi Lori,

Yeah, that's a good question. Is literary journalism what people want the night of a tense election? A lot of people could get more fast-paced information through broadcast media (especially cable news) or through streaming video on the Web. But it's all kind of the same everywhere, isn't it? We're watching CNN as we write this and although the vote-count proximity of the two candidates make this election especially compelling, it's still kind of a tried and true format. We've both covered elections, and you know the standard, formulaic stories you hammer out when you're on deadline during election eve.

I wonder...

a) whether there's an as yet unserved audience for well-written, real-time analysis of the elections and

b) whether the Internet presents an as yet unexplored opportunity to bring a new brand of writing to tired old subjects like elections.

Kind regards,
Borzou

Daragahi: Hi Lori,

I love Salon's writing, too. But I can't for the life of me understand why it's so difficult to bring Salon's strengths to election night. Perhaps both Salon and Slate both figure most people will be stuck to their television sets tonight and check on the Web tomorrow at work. Maybe some stuff'll go up later in the night. When they give breaking news a shot, the results are excellent. Check out the Anthony York article on Hillary's victory: "Grand Central Station is swarming with Secret Service. Everybody inside the Grand Hyatt seems to have a press credential around their neck or a wire in their ear, waiting for the president of the United States, and the woman poised to be New York's next U.S. senator." Good job, Anthony!

Kind regards,
Borzou

Hi Borzou,
I just checked out the Hillary Clinton story. It had my attention to the end. I particularly enjoyed this part: "But she is also sure to inspire pit bull-style frothing as she waltzes into the American House of Lords on Jan. 3. "Oh, she'll definitely be used as a foil," Kerrey says. "Look, a Clinton is a Clinton is a Clinton. My guess is that she'll be used in Republican fundraising letters for the next six years. She'll lighten Ted Kennedy's load as a foil used to raise money."

I also see Salon posted an Electoral College map that seems to be keeping up with voter.com's and cnn.com's map updates. I did notice some funkiness around 9:10 p.m. EST. First the map had Gore 145, Bush 130. When I updated, the map reverted to the 8:45 p.m. map with Gore 123, Bush 130. I refreshed several times and the map switched back and forth at least several times. I stopped after that and started watching CNN.

--Lori