I stayed on the couch watching returns, waiting for the clincher (which proved to be Ohio, again) until about 330am GMT, at which point I dozed off and on until I finally made my way up to bed at 6am (that's 930pm and 1am EST respectively).
The BBC, ITV, and Sky News coverage was abysmal - SkyNews especially, but I was really surprised how bad the BBC was. They had a little panel of commentators, the first of which included the abrasive Christopher Hitchens. The 'moderator' clearly was disgusted by Hitchens' erudite but blunt assessments of the failures of the Administration and its impact on the campaign, and barely allowed Hitchens the opportunity to speak. They switched out the commentators around the table a couple of times, at one point giving John Bolton a seat at the table. Talk about repugnant - I have never seen someone so entitled and defensive - it gave those segments of coverage a very bad vibe. Poor job on choosing those commentators, BBC.
ITV wasn't horrifyingly bad, but it was rather boring. The couple of dudes they had in the main studio doing analysis were deadly dull. At one point they had completely messed up the electoral vote count, giving 103 to McCain and 34 to Obama, and they tried to defend their mistake with somesuch nonsense that it was based on calls rather than votes counted or somethings. Not very reassuring.
SkyNews was just weird. Their affiliate in the US - from whom they were getting the state result calls - appeared to be FoxNews, who was so different from the other two channels that it called their coverage into question.
One thing I noticed about all three was that their on-the-ground reporters were kinda dicks. I mean, I know that the UK has the reputation for direct questions in their news reporting, but their clear bias in favor of Obama even tasted bad to my mouth. At one point there was a BBC reporter in Virginia questioning a farmer why he had voted for McCain / the republicans when the Bush Administration had let so much go awry. The poor farmer didn't have much defense for his vote, other than the fact he had consistently voted the GOP party his whole life, but the BBC reporter basically niggled and poked this poor guy about his vote so much that it made them look like they were trying to make this guy out to be stupid. It was not a flattering moment for the BBC.
Another thing that annoyed me as an American accustomed to US reporting was the lack of depth of analysis into voting patterns, precincts reporting, etc. When a state was called by an affiliate network, they just kind of reported it, rather than putting the call in its proper contexts (how many votes, how many precincts reporting, where there were votes yet to be counted, etc). When they called Pennsylvania for Obama, I instinctively had a 2000 Florida moment - PA was supposed to be a pretty intense battleground state, and I had no idea what data the networks were using to make that bold prediction. Also, there was very little discussion of the almost equally important Senate races that were being fought. In the checks and balances system the US has, it's just as important to know how much power the party of the executive is going to have in the legislature. I was pretty disappointed by this - although they did cover the Dole-Hagen Senate fight in North Carolina, mostly because of its trainwreck value.
Finally, the production values and technology challenges that all three stations suffered from were positively amateur looking in comparison. There were lots of lost audio communications, miscues as to where they were going next, lame A/V aids trying to illustrate what was going on.
I can't believe I am going to say it, but I missed the US cable news networks - yes even CNN - in this election coverage.
In any case, the UK stations could not conceal their glee and elation about the Obama victory. Maybe that's why John Bolton was such a crab.