Something interesting happened to me while writing this piece. I believe that "stories" on the web don't work all that well for two reasons. One is the obvious "I don't want to read a story off a screen" argument, which is certainly valid. The contrast does something to the human brain that just makes you want to go crazy. And the other is that the web is factually based, a tremendous information repository. So when fiction is introduced, there's something a little, well, off. It's not a comfortable medium for it.
However, the newspaper articles I wrote really sang for me. I was able to do multiple perspectives on the race based on the paper I was writing for. I only used the Herald and the Phoenix, but the styles of the two papers were enough for me to think about how each would cover the story differently. So it becomes "factual" reporting on "fictional" stories, which I think is much more appealing. That's the basis for sites like Crime Scene, which I talked about in my first assignment. It uses facts to describe what happened. But this still doesn't feel right, because it's not a linear story as much as a bunch of reports and stuff.
I think that something along the lines of Tom Wolfe or Hunter S. Thompson, in the "new journalism," would fit well into the web, because it is factual. It's journalistic. It's more web-like than fiction. So if I had to do this over, I'd probably rely more heavily on a journalistic approach, perhaps covering the election. Of course, this doesn't introduce the multiple perspective genre that seems to be so popular in this class. But hey, it's a different form of narrative.