For example, last week, on the Guardian Joe Rospars affirmed that the parties missed their chance in this respect:

The bulk of the political parties' online efforts have been focused on finding new ways to play the tired insider games of accusation, response and posturing. The media has abetted them, dutifully reporting the latest quips and gaffes as fast as politicians can tweet them.
Meanwhile, as the parties engage in the same old political fights on the new digital battlefield, many independent organisations without the bureaucracy of a traditional political party have adapted like startups to new opportunities on the web.

In response to Rospar's analysis, our own Nancy Scola identified the short period of time left for the campaigning as a key factor.
"But the internet did play a significant part in the way many people experienced this election - and that was very different from what happened in 2005" says BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones, in his in-depth post that deals with the web's influence on engagement, persuasion and organisation. Maybe the biggest influence was on the news cycle:

For anyone watching the campaign closely, the blogs and social networks - particularly Twitter - provided a fascinating running commentary from an array of mostly partisan viewpoints.
That seemed to make every event, from the TV debates to the "bigoted woman" row, happen at warp speed - so that, after a few hours, it was time to move on to something new.
But did these new media sources actually provide breaking news stories? Apart from the odd Twitter gaffe, not really. Nor did amateur footage shot on mobile phones change the course of the campaign.

For further reading, on Pep-Net Politik digital published a review of opinions on the topic.

"Matteo Renzi thinks that speed cameras in Florence really work: he was driving too fast and was fined (155 euros)". Florence mayor Matteo Renzi decided to share his traffic violation (and related fine) directly with his citizens on his Facebook fan page. This made news on national newspaper (expecially from his opponents) but - most of all - raised all sort of reaction from his supporters: the violations was condemned but, mostly, he was kindly reproached - probably also because of the direct way of sharing the news.
A lessons for the future? Well, in some way the episode did set an example for transparency matters - though, not for driving safely.