There is no better sign that we have entered an era of total media convergence than the decision by the Washington Post and Newsweek to host live video broadcasts on the Web of the presidential primary results.

One of the great benefits of being a print reporter is that you don’t have to vamp while trying to cover some event live when nothing is happening. Even with the immediacy of the Internet, when you can liveblog or near-live blog, you don’t have to update a post if there is nothing to add.

The Post’s approach, which it started on Super Tuesday and repeated for the Potomac primary, is modeled on network television, except without most of the video resources. The set? Some banners hung in the Post’s Interactive newsroom in Virginia. There is a camera in the Post’s Washington newsroom, video feed of candidate speeches from the Associated Press. Reporters in the field call in by phone but have no live video.

Why bother? I asked Jim Brady, the executive editor of WashingtonPost.com.

“It’s easy to sit around and say this is or isn’t in our sweet spot. This is something that the Washington Post can or can’t do well,” he said. “Our attitude is to err on the side on trying it and finding out.”

This election year could mark the time that hybrid media starts to become real. Nearly every mainstream news organization, print or broadcast, has one or more political blogs. Most have podcasts too. Print organizations are creating video. Traditional networks are exploring new formats. CNN and ABC News both cover politics extensively on their Web-only video channels. Upstart media, like Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo and Real Clear Politics, are using the campaign to strut their stuff in all formats.

Washington Post.com and Newsweek.com will do a three-hour broadcast of the Texas and Ohio contests’ results starting at 7 p.m. Eastern time.

What the Webcast does have is a stable of reporters and editors drawn from the Post, Newsweek and Slate.com, all owned by the Washington Post Co. The anchor is Jon Meacham, the editor of Newsweek. And there have been the usual assortment of political guests in the studio and on the phone.

Unlike a TV network, the Post Webcast has a live chat room where readers can discuss the program as it is happening. And anchors refer to statistics and articles that are being posted on the Post company sites.

This experimentation is great. With a hot story and jump ball over who will control the coverage of it, a lot of interesting things will be tried.

Some will, of course, be better than others. Mr. Brady said he’s not sure yet if live Webcasting is right for the Post.

“We need to figure out what is the offering that makes it different from television, which we are still working through,” he said. Still he’s interested in trying live Webcasts for other stories, such as the National Football League draft and the Pope’s visit to the United States.

Already, it has learned some lessons. The first Webcasts had no commercials, mainly because the idea was put together so quickly that no advertising was sold. In addition to some forgone revenue, this presented its own problem. “The lack of commercials can be tough for your hosts. There isn’t any time to take a breather so they can take a sip of water,” Mr. Brady said.

Tuesday night, the Post has some prepackaged video segments ready in case anyone gets thirsty.

Readers: Did anyone see the Washington Post live primary Webcast? How did it compare to other primary night media choices, online and on TV?