Does HD News Matter?

[techguy1975]

Going off the debate in the thread on Ch.12's new set, I started thinking...  Do local news shows in HD matter?  Do local stations NEED to broadcast news in HD, or is it just another buzz word like "SuperMega Doppler 5000xl w/PowerZoom!"?

Personally, if the station puts out a crappy product, it'll be just as crappy in HD or SD.  Being in HD itself, I don't think will add any real value to a newscast, and at least in my opinion, is more of just a gimmick>  So, what say you?

[Xizer]

Uhh, duh. Everything in HD matters. The key word here is television. If I didn't care about actually, you know, SEEING the content, I'd just go read some text about it or listen to an audio news report.

Being able to see what's going on is important to any video footage.

If more places installed HD security cameras maybe they'd actually be able to catch a criminal before he robs 20 stores and finally makes a mistake...

[techguy1975]

You can still see it in SD...Why does it need to be in HD.  Especially local news.  HD is nice, but I don't really think it adds or subtracts anything from the overall product.

You do raise another good point though.  With people on the go so much more,  many don't even both watching TV anymore (or reading a newspaper). Opting to get the news they are interested in online or sent to their phone

[amaroq]

I can't say that I care too much about whether a newscast is in HD.  There's an "Oh hey, that's neat" factor to be sure, but with the news what I care about is the content, and that comes through in SD or HD.  Fox 6 could broadcast their news in 1080p with full surround sound and I still wouldn't watch it -- it's the quality of the reporting that matters to me.  (On the other hand, if I'm watching a movie on TV, I'm going to be ticked if it's not in proper HD.)

[LoadStar]

Personally, while HD is nice, I put production values and journalistic excellence way, way above it.  

For instance, as it stands now, I would not watch CBS58 even if they went HD, unless they made gigantic strides towards drastically improving their production values. I also don't watch TMJ4, because I don't care for their journalistic skills.

[ArgMeMatey]

For instance, as it stands now, I would not watch CBS58 even if they went HD, unless they made gigantic strides towards drastically improving their production values. I also don't watch TMJ4, because I don't care for their journalistic skills.

I agree with your observations but not your approach.  

I watch 58 for their sheer news density.  TMJ4 is prettier, and it starts a minute earlier, so I usually catch the big bleeders there and then if they start the dramatic music or the latest cosmetic exposé, I move immediately to the hard news on 58.  Otherwise I often toggle between the two.  Or even between all four.  I am sure I'm not missing much, although I wish they would all get it together and make sure their commercial breaks are staggered.

[budda]

Personally, while HD is nice, I put production values and journalistic excellence way, way above it.  

For instance, as it stands now, I would not watch CBS58 even if they went HD, unless they made gigantic strides towards drastically improving their production values. I also don't watch TMJ4, because I don't care for their journalistic skills.

I would agree with most of what you said. Useing HD makes viewing the news a better experience. But being in HD is not what draws me too a certain channel. As for the news it self. Local coverage is like look for the biggest tragedy. They pull it off the wire and regurgitate what was all ready reported. A lot of poor reporting, but I am starting to ramble.................................star-wars-smiley-023

[Tivoman44]

Loadstar is right.  I will take it a step further and say that I don't like any of the local 4 stations.  I feel obligated to watch, especially on a work morning, for traffic weather and other alerts.  He is right that HD is nice, but the substance is what makes it worth watching.

[Tivoman44]

I do see the other point though.  In my personal experience, about 4 years ago when not having cable, and this was back when not a whole lot would broadcast in HD, I would flip through the channels and catch myself stopping on whatever was in HD, noticing how great the picture was, comparing it to a SD broadcast.  I wondered if being in HD would revolutionize ratings in people tuning into that because of that.  An interesting sociological study, but I still think Loadstar is right, substance is the bottom line of viewing.

[foxeng]

I can't speak for the Milwaukee area, not living there, but from my own perspective, it isn't so much INCREASING ratings, but MAINTAINING what you have.

If the viewer perceives the station as not keeping up with the technology, they will assume that their news product suffers in other areas as well. It is a subconscious thing, but it eventual starts to erode ratings, no matter how good or bad the content is.

I myself are content driven, not HD driven. But now with all the HD choices available to me locally as well as nationally in my market, the SD newscast is overlooked as if it were a black and white program. I choose between the HD programs and the SD programs only come in to view if no HD program is deemed worthy of my eyes. How many times have you been watching a classic TV show and said to yourself, "this is really good, but if it were in color/16:9..." We all do this. As the new manta goes, "We are born this way." It is subconsciously considered inferior, no matter how good content wise it is. And the old shows in black and white content wise are a heck of a lot better than what is coming out today content wise!

If the norm in a given market is opposite of what you are doing, eventually what you are doing dies. Perceived better is available somewhere else. And as we all know, perception is reality. I see this thinking exhibited on this very board by many posters when discussing SD vs HD now.

Something to think about.

[Nels Harvey]

In the early sixties, more and more programs were turning to color (Yes, I'm that old!).  We would watch the color programs over black and white programs, until we realized some of the color programs were really crappy.  That is where I learned it really was the content that mattered.  I think the same argument can be applied to HD vs. SD.  All of the stations are in color now, of course.  The same thing will be able to be said when all of the stations are 100 percent HD.

Color technology has drastically improved since those early days of the RCA TK41, and Norelco 70's.  The same thing will occur with technology developments that are still to come in HD.  Some day we will look back and realize the pictures we rave about today were really inferior to what ultimately will be run of the mill television.  All we need is some more patience!

[Talos4]

Back in the mid 60's yes I'm that old too,

I remember watching Super Bowl I in color at the neighbors house because we didn't have a color TV.

The next year the neighbor had died, we had to watch Super Bowl II in B&W at home.

Did I enjoy watching both games ? Yes, was one better than the other because it was in Color? Nope!

Would the Twilight Zone have been better in color?

Are colorized movies better because they were colorized?

Is Channel 4 news better than Channel 12 because 4 is in HD?

To answer all of the questions.... NO!!!