I'd really drifted away from watching cable news for several years, but on these big primary news days, one needs to shift back. In the meantime, I've gotten used to watching most programming either on DVD or else in high definition. Once you grow accustomed to it, it's really striking to turn back to something low def like MSNBC or CNN. One can't help but think that if these news channels broadcast in higher definition, it would make a big difference to how some of these candidates look and, in turn, how the voters perceive them. John McCain, most notably, is covering up some very old man looking skin under a big ol' layer of makeup in a way that I bet wouldn't work nearly as well.
« Bloombergunity '08 | Main | Admissions »
HD Politics
10 Jan 2008 11:14 am
Comments (27)
CNN is now in HD and Senator McCain looks fine.
Cnn just recently started broadcasting in HD. Their daily news programs aren't Hd yet, but the situation room, lou dobbs, anderson cooper and all their special coverage of the elections are in sparkling HD.
Msnbc and foxnews are abominations in comparison.
I noticed that during both the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries MSNBC put a live feed on their website that is either not there or buried most of the time. Instead of commercials they just run pre-packaged evergreen stories.
I wonder what their model is. If they're going to offer it, why not sell adds? I wonder if they've considered offering it all the time. I'm skeptical that it would cannibalize their cable profits, because most people are going to pay for cable anyway (and don't want to watch on a tiny screen).
John McCain, most notably, is covering up some very old man looking skin under a big ol' layer of makeup
I wonder how he covers up that fusty old-man smell?
The news channels are bad enough that you don't need to see their personal warts in high def, too. One can only wonder how in the world Lou Dobbs got his hair to appear that way on the broadcast.
How can anyone with any intelligence at all spend any time watching so many people be so in love with their own ideas and voices - yet be so wrong? Stay with the low def - it goes better with the results....
The Times had an article a while back about how the porn industry was having to rethink its methods because HD was revealing things like zits and cellulite and other unpleasantries alongside all those splayed apertures. Not good for business.
Yes, this is a great idea: let's make the political process more superficial. Maybe E! could host a debate?
If we start having the debates in HD, are we going to have another Kennedy vs Nixon moment?
Move to Europe and you'll get a 20% increase in resolution for free ;).
I'm surprised no one has mocked MY for saying that DVDs are high definition. So, allow me . . . Duh! You need an HD DVD or Blu-Ray for high-def, dude!
Right idea, wrong candidate.
There are some some unflattering photos of Hillary Clinton that surface from time to time--I think AM New York had an extreme close-up on a cover this week that had very highly defined wrinkles. In a HDTV campaign, such images would be routine and, I think, hurt her chances in the long run.
Rightly or wrongly, most Americans can see themselves voting for an aging patriarch for president. The same may not be true of aging matriarchs.
Porn has more bigger problems than HD. Why pay for something when people are giving the stuff away for free like on youporn?
I'm surprised no one has mocked MY for saying that DVDs are high definition.
He didn't say that DVDs are high definition.
I think I first read about this in Neal Stephenson's novel Interface. One of the characters, a political media consultant type, explains how in the age of radio how you sounded was king: Churchill sounded great on the radio. But then TV comes a long and that sort of politician no longer fits the medium, so along comes the film star politicians - Regan springs to mind. HD-TV is just the next step along...
I was holding up a sign at the Salem town hall on Tuesday when Romney came by.
I have to say, the most striking thing was that he is a very attractice 50-something. A bit of a dork, but maybe one tick of coolness from being a legitimate dilf. When you see him in the person and the light lines on his face around his mouth and eyes, he looks like a real person, and a good-looking one at that.
I think he desperately needs a new makeup person. On (regular-def) tv, he looks animatronic, perfectly smooth-faced and wholly artificial. Mitt Romney doesn't actually look like that. While McCain's slathered pancake is probably helping him nationally, Romney needs a much more "natural" look.
I wonder if Hillary would look like a pathetic old hag in HD, crying inconsolably with her make-up all smudged. OTOH, women probably dream of voting for the old hags.
Russ - exactly what I was about to quote - except that he said that Reagan and others were politicians who looked good on TV, and HDTV would "make them look like country and western singers" and sweep them away in favour of movie stars, who already knew about HD.
He didn't say that DVDs are high definition.
D'oh. My bad.
I wonder if Hillary would look like a pathetic old hag in HD, crying inconsolably with her make-up all smudged.
Blue riot, please keep your sexual fantasies to yourself.
So next we'll be putting people older than 50 in burqas? The superficiality here is appalling.
I think this applies more broadly to all the vanity professions (i.e where how you look is important). Things like TV news, talk shows (hosts and guests), etc. My local news is in HD now and I suspect some of the anchors don't appreciate it that much.
It's good for the cosmetics industry though I guess.
So next we'll be putting people older than 50 in burqas?
Posted by bemused | January 10, 2008 1:20 PM
If that isn't a plank in the Obama platform, it oughta be.
I had exactly the same experience Tuesday night watch ing the NH returns. I was on CNN-HD (which DirecTV has recently instituted in place of the regular version for those with HD receivers) and then switched over to Fox News and was shocked they weren't in HD yet.
Given that I largely gave up on cable as an inefficient way of gathering information before getting accustomed to HD, though, I doubt HD is the solution to their problems.
I've been watching CNN HD, but note that pretty much only the in-studio shots are HD. I suppose it's prohibitively expensive at this point to do reporters' standups in HD, so they're mainly standard, as are shots from campaign events and other news footage. So McCain might not want to stop by CNN Center for an in-person chat with Wolf anytime soon.
I don't own an HD tv yet and I'm not really familiar with the features. But I'm thinking that manufacturers, if they haven't already, should add the ability to go to low-rez, standard old tv resolution if desired to make watching some things more palatable.
Well, Hillary knows how to deal with TV - she used "Gaussian blur" in her video before New Hampshire to look younger. Everybody noticed it.
When you realize that just about every shot of every celebrity you see has been massively PhotoShopped by a professional firm, you kind of lose interest. That's why I prefer candids from public events, although even those are frequently PhotoShopped.
Any time you can't see Angelina Jolie's forehead mole, she's been PhotoShopped.
And the pro firms don't just do faces - they do bodies, too. They will knock ten pounds off a female actress and adjust her bust size, if necessary. And you'll never know until you get her in bed (fat chance.)
So, yeah, HDTV will screw up the older people in live TV, at least until the pressure to allow Gaussian blur in newscasts becomes irresistible, but the stills will stay faked.
BTW, Matt, when are you going to start using Gaussian blur over at Bloggingheads?
Maybe if would be better if you just cut the audio?
Comments closed January 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
CNN HD just got added to my cable lineup.
Posted by MattM | January 10, 2008 11:21 AM