# CNN confirms high definition channel this year.



## UKintheUS

Britains *Digital Spy *website says, CNN has confirmed that it plans to launch a high definition channel this year.

CNN has already secured distribution for CNN-HD on digital satellite TV provider DirecTV. The channel is scheduled to launch in the Autumn.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/ustv/a41766/cnn-hd-to-launch-this-year.html


----------



## Larry G

Thanks for that good news.


----------



## Virginian

The question is, will CNN be a part of the HD package?


----------



## MikeR7

Fox News better be planning HD too, or they will lose viewers to CNN just for the PQ!


----------



## Mavrick

Cool Erica Hill In HD!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

MikeR7 said:


> Fox News better be planning HD too, or they will lose viewers to CNN just for the PQ!


Somehow I doubt that. People who tend to watch FOX exclusively (or CNN for that matter) seem to do it because of a particular political slant to the news. I doubt someone would watch "the evil enemy" in HD as opposed to watching the channel they believe to share their political views.


----------



## John W

HDMe said:


> Somehow I doubt that. People who tend to watch FOX exclusively (or CNN for that matter) seem to do it because of a particular political slant to the news. I doubt someone would watch "the evil enemy" in HD as opposed to watching the channel they believe to share their political views.


You're right.I'll stay with Fox for what I've seen there for the last 10 years or so of my life.30 years of it to go to equal the many years of just having the liberal view from every other news outlet in existence.


----------



## THX

Hopefully it will air just in time for hurricane season to watch Hurricane Cooper in high-def fighting 100+ mph winds.


----------



## mruk69

Yikes, The Clintons, Al Gore, Nancy Polosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Howard Dean in HD? Somebody call my mamma. Help please, no no no we must stop this. Does that mean you will have to put weights on the right side of your telly.


----------



## DonCorleone

Of all the things to add in HD, they pick CNN...woo hoo, I mean, give me a break. Can I also get CSPAN2-HD and TEST PATTERN TV-HD


----------



## Mavrick

DonCorleone said:


> Of all the things to add in HD, they pick CNN...woo hoo, I mean, give me a break. Can I also get CSPAN2-HD and TEST PATTERN TV-HD


How about the Weather Channel HD


----------



## Geronimo

Mavrick said:


> Cool Erica Hill In HD!


She is actually on Headline News a separate channel.


----------



## ktabel01

TV guide channel HD coming next.


----------



## Jon D

MikeR7 said:


> Fox News better be planning HD too, or they will lose viewers to CNN just for the PQ!


I doubt it. People watch Fox News because they get real news and because people on the opinion shows actually admit what their political affiliations are. Fox news watchers will not likely leave Fox News for an entertainment channel like CNN just because CNN is HD. I for one will still have CNN deleted from my channel guide. Don't get me wrong though. I would certainly like to see War Stories in HD.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

Interesting. I wonder, if Fox News will consider hi Def.? Fox/NEWSCORP and Abc/Disney have there army boots on for war. Except, CNN-HD..


----------



## schwalbe

This is nice...but I sure wish DirecTV would reinstitute CNNI - the international version that ran on weekends. There were some good programs on that which are not on CNN.


----------



## PoitNarf

MikeR7 said:


> Fox News better be planning HD too, or they will lose viewers to CNN just for the PQ!


Yes, because we all know that Fox News viewers are easily distracted by shiny things :lol:

/I'm only 1/2 joking


----------



## Dusty

Virginian said:


> The question is, will CNN be a part of the HD package?


I talked to a customer retention rep yesterday for something else. We got on this subject before we concluded the call. She said there was no price information for the new HD channels yet. She can't confirm if it would or would not be included in the current HD package. I have seem speculations in the forums that there will new tiers of HD programs. I would be very surprised (pleasantly) if there is no price increase.


----------



## MikeR7

but I watch whatever is in HD if there is a choice. Have to justify the investment.:lol:


----------



## Nick

DonCorleone said:


> Of all the things to add in HD, they pick CNN...woo hoo, I mean, give me a break.
> Can I also get CSPAN2-HD and TEST PATTERN TV-HD


We already have Test Pattern TV in HD. :lol:

You can view the schedule HERE.


----------



## bobukcat

Really, anything on that channel you would likely want to see in HD would be from a field camera and you know those and the trucks they use aren't going to be HD in a very long time. I can think of at least a dozen channels I'd prefer to see in HD before CNN or Fox News, however I'm sure there are those that disagree.....


----------



## rirwin1983

bobukcat said:


> Really, anything on that channel you would likely want to see in HD would be from a field camera and you know those and the trucks they use aren't going to be HD in a very long time. I can think of at least a dozen channels I'd prefer to see in HD before CNN or Fox News, however I'm sure there are those that disagree.....


dont you think that since there gonna launch the channel in hd, that it means they are either currentely testing those cameras or have plans to purchase them in the near future (spring).


----------



## Trav

MikeR7 said:


> Fox News better be planning HD too, or they will lose viewers to CNN just for the PQ!


Not a chance.

I bet most Fox fans would prefer an audio only Fox News to watching anything on CNN in HD.  ..."No Spin"


----------



## Reggie3

HDMe said:


> Somehow I doubt that. People who tend to watch FOX exclusively (or CNN for that matter) seem to do it because of a particular political slant to the news. I doubt someone would watch "the evil enemy" in HD as opposed to watching the channel they believe to share their political views.


or lack of political slant that fox provides


----------



## purtman

John W said:


> You're right.I'll stay with Fox for what I've seen there for the last 10 years or so of my life.30 years of it to go to equal the many years of just having the liberal view from every other news outlet in existence.


You guys crack me up. After spending nearly 20 years of experiene in the media, roughly 75 percent of the guys I worked with were conservative Republicans. It's amazing how many people believe this and have never spent a minute in the media.

And, by the way, yes I am a conservative.


----------



## purtman

Trav said:


> Not a chance.
> 
> I bet most Fox fans would prefer an audio only Fox News to watching anything on CNN in HD.  ..."No Spin"


"No spin"? Does that include showing congressman Mark Foley as a Democrat three times in a row? Hmmm .... sounds pretty fishy and unprofessional to me...


----------



## Steve Mehs

Trav said:


> Not a chance.
> 
> I bet most Fox fans would prefer an audio only Fox News to watching anything on CNN in HD.  ..."No Spin"


Yep. I'd rather listen to Fox News on XM or Sirius then watch CNN in HD. While this is a step in the right direction, I don't believe CNN HD or Fox News HD (or an HD feed from that third news channel, whose name I can't remember) is a must at this point. I'll probably be getting this channel when its launched (as TW owns the channel, and we're the only ones that get that waste of bandwidth, CNN International) and sadly probably before Cinemax HD.

Talking news heads already provide the best standard def picture quality, so I guess it only makes sence to do it in HD and 16:9


----------



## eric0116

Regardless of political slant, news in HD adds quite a bit to the delivery. In Denver, channel 9 airs their local news in HD and seeing live shots in HD, especially any airial shots, adds much to the clairty of the information conveyed. IMO news in HD is better use of the bandwidth than reformatted 80's shows in HD.


----------



## kick4fun

Jon D said:


> I doubt it. People watch Fox News because they get real news and because people on the opinion shows actually admit what their political affiliations are. Fox news watchers will not likely leave Fox News for an entertainment channel like CNN just because CNN is HD. I for one will still have CNN deleted from my channel guide. Don't get me wrong though. I would certainly like to see War Stories in HD.


Give me a break... People watch fox for real news???? If thats not the most obvious oxymoron!!!!!


----------



## Mixer

If you get your local FOX in HD you can at least get FOX News Sunday in HD.



John W said:


> You're right.I'll stay with Fox for what I've seen there for the last 10 years or so of my life.30 years of it to go to equal the many years of just having the liberal view from every other news outlet in existence.


----------



## Mixer

Without turning this into a huge political debate it is obvious that the left hates FOX because they give a view that has never been seen in the news before them. I love it when I see people say that Fox is not a fair station. Has anyone on the left ever seen Alaan Colmes in action?



kick4fun said:


> Give me a break... People watch fox for real news???? If thats not the most obvious oxymoron!!!!!


----------



## jwd45244

CNN in HD? Why would I want to see talking heads in Hi Def? Ho hum back to sleep


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Actually I watch neither CNN nor FOX News regularly... so I would tend to give whichever one goes HD first a look.

But I was refuting the idea that CNN in HD would draw regular FOX news viewers away... since I suspect anyone who is a regular viewer of the SD channel today is a regular viewer because of the type of content and/or personalities that are on that channel... in which case I would expect them to stay loyal and wait for their channel to go HD.


----------



## Steve Mehs

Mixer said:


> If you get your local FOX in HD you can at least get FOX News Sunday in HD.


Is it really in HD or just a SD simulcast? I find it odd they would do that.


----------



## RAD

Steve Mehs said:


> Is it really in HD or just a SD simulcast? I find it odd they would do that.


I thought it was a 16x9 480p program, not 720p. At least that's what I though was the news when they first started doing it.


----------



## hazydave

MikeR7 said:


> Fox News better be planning HD too, or they will lose viewers to CNN just for the PQ!


Not a problem... satellite was hard enough for the typical Fox viewer to rig up in the double-wide, they're not fallin' for that HDTV scam. Besides, it makes the video out from the VHS (full size) camcorder all stretchy.


----------



## Spazzman

purtman said:


> "No spin"? Does that include showing congressman Mark Foley as a Democrat three times in a row? Hmmm .... sounds pretty fishy and unprofessional to me...


What are you talking about? Remember Dan Rather??


----------



## jamieh1

Lets hope that there field reports are in HD, ABCs GMA has the studio stuff in HD but most of the field shots are in sd.

I get WRAL from Raleigh NC and there entire news is HD, all field reports, SKY 5 chopper is HD, and VIPIR HD radar. The news in HD is great.


----------



## purtman

Spazzman said:


> What are you talking about? Remember Dan Rather??


I do. But what does Dan Rather have to do with Fox's blatant attempt to slant the news?

Truthfully, I am a conservative with nearly 20 years of experience in the newspaper and broadcast media (as a reporter, not an ad salesman). I had never seen a news group that was blatantly skewed. I thought I was going to gag.

Now as far as the "left" not getting the proper slant on the news, well, about 75 percent of the people I worked would be considered conservatives. These were people who were at both the local and national level.

So rather than throw these blatant political comments out there, make sure you know what you're talking about and keep it to the thread.


----------



## OneOfOne

purtman said:


> I do. But what does Dan Rather have to do with Fox's blatant attempt to slant the news?
> 
> Truthfully, I am a conservative with nearly 20 years of experience in the newspaper and broadcast media (as a reporter, not an ad salesman). I had never seen a news group that was blatantly skewed. I thought I was going to gag.
> 
> Now as far as the "left" not getting the proper slant on the news, well, about 75 percent of the people I worked would be considered conservatives. These were people who were at both the local and national level.
> 
> So rather than throw these blatant political comments out there, make sure you know what you're talking about and keep it to the thread.


theres only one problem with your myopic view. everytime newpaper editors or reporters on tv are canvassed, the vast majority admit to being liberal or left leaning. thats the only reason why people think fox's reportage is slanted. cbs, abc, nbc, and of course cnn [clinton news network] all are liberal leaning. and lets not forget the numerous scandals in the last presidential election where 'managing editors' of these liberal 'news' organizations were caught either with memos about intentionally slanting the news of the candidates in favor of the democrats or blatantly false reporting about president bush and his 'military' past. but then Dan Rather was really ready to leave his job anyway correct? I forgot though, I probably dont know what I am talking about.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jamielee said:


> Lets hope that there field reports are in HD, ABCs GMA has the studio stuff in HD but most of the field shots are in sd.
> 
> I get WRAL from Raleigh NC and there entire news is HD, all field reports, SKY 5 chopper is HD, and VIPIR HD radar. The news in HD is great.


Yep. I always liked the channel 5 folks, but used to flip around and watch the other channels too... but once I got my HDTV, I stopped watching anything but WRAL (or 10pm WRAZ by the same folks).

They take a lot of portable HDTV cameras out for remote shoots so pretty much the whole newscast is HD, except when they are covering a national news story and patch in SD content from other channels.


----------



## mruk69

What difference will this channel make as Charlie has no idea what HD is. 
Do you remeber his attempt at the HD Charlie Chat. I demand Court TV HD LOL.


----------



## linuxworks

PoitNarf said:


> Yes, because we all know that Fox News viewers are easily distracted by shiny things :lol:
> 
> /I'm only 1/2 joking


and lapel flags.

and no, I'm NOT kidding. ;(

faux news: more fake than the Daily Show...


----------



## linuxworks

jwd45244 said:


> CNN in HD? Why would I want to see talking heads in Hi Def?


because ALL satellite SD shows really, uhh, 'bite the ole moose' 

all the mpg artifacts and loss of sharpness makes SD hard to watch.

its not that there is extra HD detail you need to see, but at least lets get dvd-quality from cable shows. that's mostly what I want HD for. not so much HD for HD sake but so that all the rest of the SD shows will be forced to upgrade and THEN the video quality might actually be watchable.


----------



## gb33

MikeR7 said:


> Fox News better be planning HD too, or they will lose viewers to CNN just for the PQ!


Doubtful. No matter how good the picture is, it still won't be clear of what these liberals are doing.


----------



## Hoxxx

HDMe said:


> Somehow I doubt that. People who tend to watch FOX exclusively (or CNN for that matter) seem to do it because of a particular political slant to the news. I doubt someone would watch "the evil enemy" in HD as opposed to watching the channel they believe to share their political views.


well with the elections comming up voters need to watch both side of the political fence.


----------



## tonyd79

LOL. I love when Faux lovers try to say that "their" news is not slanted but all other is when Faux is the most notorious for presenting "their" side of the story. Blatantly. And why do they think this? Because Faux told them so.

It is like when Rush's fans say they think for themselves then call themselves "Dittoheads."

Oxymorons are they.


----------



## drded

purtman said:


> roughly 75 percent of the guys I worked with were conservative Republicans.


Things must be really different in Missouri. I've worked in the business off and on since 1966 and each year the trend is less and less conservative staffing and reporting. Even a recent study done by Berkely confirms the leftness of most media.

Dave


----------



## UKintheUS

Well growing up in England and watching BBC News 24 and Sky News in HR (High Resolution) PAL, makes all the diffrence with the news. More so when you move to the US and get to watch in NTSC Blury Vision SD.

Lets see BBC World HD, that will suit me fine.


----------



## mruk69

UKintheUS said:


> Well growing up in England and watching BBC News 24 and Sky News in HR (High Resolution) PAL, makes all the diffrence with the news. More so when you move to the US and get to watch in NTSC Blury Vision SD.
> 
> Lets see BBC World HD, that will suit me fine.


I agree mate, and heck before Sky came along we only had 4 ota channels and they came in crystal clear.
Picture quality in Pal is much better.


----------



## DaveTinNY

PBS HD
I'll take The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer any time over the Breaking News a**holes like Faux, CNN, etcetera. "News," for the most part, whether in HD or not is an absolute joke these days.
If they showed what was really happening in Iraq, maybe the fool in the White House wouldn't be sending even more troops into this failure.
I'm a vet.


----------



## purtman

drded said:


> Things must be really different in Missouri. I've worked in the business off and on since 1966 and each year the trend is less and less conservative staffing and reporting. Even a recent study done by Berkely confirms the leftness of most media.
> 
> Dave


Actually, all of my media experience is in New England. That Berkeley study is kind of warped. While there may be many people who are considered to be to the left, the media is now big business, which is primarily to the right. My former boss, who is probably the most staunch Republican I've ever known, was president and publisher of USA Today for a long time and always said that the best newspaper to emulate is the New York times.


----------



## purtman

DaveTinNY said:


> PBS HD
> I'll take The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer any time over the Breaking News a**holes like Faux, CNN, etcetera. "News," for the most part, whether in HD or not is an absolute joke these days.
> If they showed what was really happening in Iraq, maybe the fool in the White House wouldn't be sending even more troops into this failure.
> I'm a vet.


He probably wouldn't be in the White House either! LOL!!

What's scary is that if all the new was reported, we'd see how bad the environment has become. We moved from New England, where I grew up, because the air quality up there has tanked in the last six years. We lived in the Connecticut River Valley, voted as one of the 40 most-beautiful places remaining in the Western Hemisphere in 1999. In 2004, New Haven, CT (about 30 miles west of us and hometown of GW Bush -- he's not a Texan), got the same air quality rating as Los Angeles. Some environmental engineers I spoke to also told me that the day after the 2000 elections they stopped enforcing the laws. The environment started going really bad up there in the early 2000s. The coal-burning plants in Ohio and PA are now having a field day.


----------



## Steve Mehs

Why can't people on this site ever keep politics out a thread that mentions CNN or Fox News. This thread is about CNN in high def not an election that happened a million years ago or the stupid environment.


----------



## RAD

Because people just like to ***** about things. :nono2:


----------



## Cmmsh

purtman said:


> You guys crack me up. After spending nearly 20 years of experiene in the media, roughly 75 percent of the guys I worked with were conservative Republicans. It's amazing how many people believe this and have never spent a minute in the media.
> 
> And, by the way, yes I am a conservative.


OK, I wasn't going to get into a political debate, because it is almost always a no-win situation. But, I haven't heard a statement more wrong in a long, long time. I work in a newsroom (and have for the past 16 years). In this one (and every one I have EVER been in), the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is AT LEAST 10-1. In many newsrooms, the ratio is even larger. I have never been in one that even approaches 50-50. Some Sports and Editorial departments tend to lean to the right, but never ever news side.

As a reference, our newsroom has about 50 editors on its copy desk. There are THREE Republicans and maybe two people who call themselves Independents (sort of like Joe Lieberman is an Independent).

Sorry to be off-topic from this thread, but I felt a strong need to respond.

If there's one thing I can't stand is people who spout off who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

BTW, MSNBC is by far better than both CNN and Fox. :lol:


----------



## purtman

Cmmsh said:


> OK, I wasn't going to get into a political debate, because it is almost always a no-win situation. But, I haven't heard a statement more wrong in a long, long time. I work in a newsroom (and have for the past 16 years). In this one (and every one I have EVER been in), the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is AT LEAST 10-1. In many newsrooms, the ratio is even larger. I have never been in one that even approaches 50-50. Some Sports and Editorial departments tend to lean to the right, but never ever news side.
> 
> As a reference, our newsroom has about 50 editors on its copy desk. There are THREE Republicans and maybe two people who call themselves Independents (sort of like Joe Lieberman is an Independent).
> 
> Sorry to be off-topic from this thread, but I felt a strong need to respond.
> 
> If there's one thing I can't stand is people who spout off who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
> 
> BTW, MSNBC is by far better than both CNN and Fox. :lol:


Absolutely no idea what I'm talking about? Hmm ... Maybe you should have worked with me. I have about almost the same experience as you. So unless you want to blast me as saying I have no idea what I'm talking about, than maybe you ought to find out something about my experience.
It's kind of like "people who spout off who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about".

And I can't say that I've ever worked in a newsroom nor know anybody who has where the ratio is 10 to 1 ANYWHERE!!!


----------



## Cmmsh

purtman said:


> Absolutely no idea what I'm talking about? Hmm ... Maybe you should have worked with me. I have about almost the same experience as you. So unless you want to blast me as saying I have no idea what I'm talking about, than maybe you ought to find out something about my experience.
> It's kind of like "people who spout off who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about".
> 
> And I can't say that I've ever worked in a newsroom nor know anybody who has where the ratio is 10 to 1 ANYWHERE!!!


Well, you must work in a very isolated place. And 10 to 1 is being conservative. I am guessing, also, that you haven't been in a newsroom in the northeast, where it may be 20 to 1 in some places.

I shouldn't have said you don't know what you are talking about, because who knows about where you work except you. My point was, and is, that the media is absolutely left-slanted -- both in their reporting and, generally, in their beliefs. Especially in larger-than-average cities.


----------



## purtman

Cmmsh said:


> Well, you must work in a very isolated place. And 10 to 1 is being conservative. I am guessing, also, that you haven't been in a newsroom in the northeast, where it may be 20 to 1 in some places.
> 
> I shouldn't have said you don't know what you are talking about, because who knows about where you work except you. My point was, and is, that the media is absolutely left-slanted -- both in their reporting and, generally, in their beliefs. Especially in larger-than-average cities.


Here's one for you. Almost all of my experience is in the northeast.


----------



## Art

HDMe said:


> Somehow I doubt that. People who tend to watch FOX exclusively (or CNN for that matter) seem to do it because of a particular political slant to the news. I doubt someone would watch "the evil enemy" in HD as opposed to watching the channel they believe to share their political views.


Call me a flip-flopper, but I'd rather watch whatever is available in HD. I'd even watch Al Gore's Warmal Globing education if it comes out on a Blu-Ray.


----------



## JimK

Jon D said:


> I doubt it. People watch Fox News because they get real news and because people on the opinion shows actually admit what their political affiliations are. Fox news watchers will not likely leave Fox News for an entertainment channel like CNN just because CNN is HD. I for one will still have CNN deleted from my channel guide. Don't get me wrong though. I would certainly like to see War Stories in HD.


An October 2003 study conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy (PIPA) found Fox News viewers were "significantly more likely to have misperceptions" about the Iraq war than all other media consumers. The study was "based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September" 2003 and measured respondents' "key perceptions and beliefs" on "US policy" in Iraq. The study found that "[t]hose who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions." For instance, of the "three key misperceptions" -- which the study listed as "the beliefs that ... links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found, that WMD have been found in Iraq and that world public opinion approved of the US going to war with Iraq" -- Fox News watchers were found not only to be the "most likely to hold misperceptions," but "were more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions." The PIPA study found that 80 percent of Fox News viewers held at least one of the three misperceptions.

Faux News


----------



## JimK

Art said:


> Call me a flip-flopper, but I'd rather watch whatever is available in HD. I'd even watch Al Gore's Warmal Globing education if it comes out on a Blu-Ray.


The screenery is quite beautifull


----------



## DonCorleone

I really don't see how you can't at least acknowledge the liberal bias in the media. Look at all the countless stories bashing Republicans, the war (I'm not crazy about the way either, but they rarely balance out the coverage), etc. I mean, it's really quite biased.

But, look, while I solely watch Fox News, I will concede that they do slant too far the right on some things. I just wish others would concede that everyone else slants to the left. With that said, even if Fox does lean right, at least they _do_ always have someone in with the left view of the issue and you have to remember that every other outlet is slanted to the other side, so the seesaw is clearly still balanced on the other side.

Also, you can't refute Fox's ratings.

However, being a political news junkie, I can say that when I'm ranking my choice for HD programming, none of the news networks make the top 20.


----------



## purtman

DonCorleone said:


> I really don't see how you can't at least acknowledge the liberal bias in the media. Look at all the countless stories bashing Republicans, the war (I'm not crazy about the way either, but they rarely balance out the coverage), etc. I mean, it's really quite biased.
> 
> But, look, while I solely watch Fox News, I will concede that they do slant too far the right on some things. I just wish others would concede that everyone else slants to the left. With that said, even if Fox does lean right, at least they _do_ always have someone in with the left view of the issue and you have to remember that every other outlet is slanted to the other side, so the seesaw is clearly still balanced on the other side.
> 
> Also, you can't refute Fox's ratings.
> 
> However, being a political news junkie, I can say that when I'm ranking my choice for HD programming, none of the news networks make the top 20.


Some are too far to the right and some are too far to the left. The questions you really have to ask yourself are "are they printing something untrue", "leaving out facts intentionally (or unintentionally for that matter", "is it the whole truth", and "is the location of the story (page in the paper and ranking in the newscast) intentional to bias one of the other parties"? I consider myself to be more conservative than liberal, so when I say that I don't see it being towards the left, I consider that fairly significant. One problem is that too many people listen to Rush Limbaugh, aka, Captain Misinformation. He tries to twist everything into everything but the truth. Because Rush says it or Fox says it, many people believe it to be the truth.

As far as TV ratings are concerned, that's more a person's choice as opposed to people believe the news to be fair. The right is usually more educated and is the one more likely to watch the non-local news shows. Fox is clearly right-leaning and is expected to get a higher percentage of those folks so those numbers are misleading.

As far as the war is concerned, the president has actually done pretty well. Should we say it's going great? More people have died there than died on 9/11 and over 2,000 have died since he said "Mission Accomplished". He should have got more of a bashing when he said that knowing what he knows now he still would have gone to war. He also escaped much of the well-known and well-documented voter mishandling in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 and the 9/11 commission's report. He has also skated the whole Katrina mess (being in San Diego for a parade while people were dying) and the latest reports on the environment. You rarely hear about what has happened to the northeast's environment or how he has pretty much stripped the northeast's military. Bush has a 36-percent approval rating _*on good days*_. Our country is at a low point in history. We're in a meaningless war, our environment and possibly the future of the world is in trouble, and we have a whole lot of other issues. You really have to expect things to appear in a negative light. Would you expect him to have a high approval rating?

A lot of the negative reporting is due to what's going on. It's not just politics, it's everything. Have you ever been to a baseball or football and heard the officials did a great job?

Would you say the press was to the left when Bush got a lot of good publicity during 9/11. It's hard to imagine anybody doing a better job than he did at the time.

The same things were done against Bill Clinton in the 1990s and will happen against the next president, regardless of party.

What a lot of people forget is that whoever is in power will get the bulk of the criticism. I recall when Reagan was in office. He did something meaningless yet it was played up on the front page. However, Iran-Contra was on page 5.

I worked in sports and most of the guys in sports were left-leaning. The news side was clearly more to the right. This was in New England, considered to be a very liberal area. I worked for small papers, medium-size, and large newspapers so I got a pretty good feel for it.

That's my two-cents. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## DonCorleone

Believe me, I'm no Bush fan (hasn't pushed hard enough for extending tax cuts, hasn't cut spending enough, won't crack down on the borders, was too passive with Iraq offensive, wrong move on affirmative action, should have been louder about privatizing social security and the impact of not accomplished anything with that, etc.), however, I just have to reiterate that, while I agree the person in power is going to take the heat, the heat this guy takes compared to Clinton is night and day.

I mean, if it hadn't been for Monica, I'm not sure you could say the press really attacked him.


----------



## purtman

DonCorleone said:


> Believe me, I'm no Bush fan (hasn't pushed hard enough for extending tax cuts, hasn't cut spending enough, won't crack down on the borders, was too passive with Iraq offensive, wrong move on affirmative action, should have been louder about privatizing social security and the impact of not accomplished anything with that, etc.), however, I just have to reiterate that, while I agree the person in power is going to take the heat, the heat this guy takes compared to Clinton is night and day.
> 
> I mean, if it hadn't been for Monica, I'm not sure you could say the press really attacked him.


Interesting but valid. What I wonder is if he would have been attacked more had there not been Monica. But we also went through a pretty good time -- no wars, economy did fairly well, and not much else for him to be hit on (other than Monica, of course).


----------



## Cmmsh

purtman said:


> Here's one for you. Almost all of my experience is in the northeast.


Hmmm, the ones I've either worked in or visited: Boston Globe. Liberal. New York Times. Extremely liberal. Baltimore Sun. Liberal. Hartford Courant. Liberal.

Am I missing something?


----------



## mruk69

Liberals, don't forget Clinton also led us to Iraq in 98 w/ the British.


----------



## purtman

Cmmsh said:


> Hmmm, the ones I've either worked in or visited: Boston Globe. Liberal. New York Times. Extremely liberal. Baltimore Sun. Liberal. Hartford Courant. Liberal.
> 
> Am I missing something?


Interesting. My old editor was the most staunch republican I've ever known and would never call the NY Times liberal. He went to become president and publisher of USA Today.

Courant, eh? I did some stringing there. But the majority of my work was at the Norwich Bulletin and Worcester Telegram along with some others. Did you know Bo Kohlinsky while you were at the Courant?


----------



## xerxes

Lumping everyone into categories of liberal and conservative is ridiculous. It is extremely archaeic and rooted in peoples need to be part of a bigger team. 

Is it not satisfactory to formulate your own opinions where your capabilities and understanding allow? 
Does it not make more practical sense to be open minded on those topics for which you do not have the expertise, time or understanding to grasp fully? 

What benefit does one gain by obtaining information from one side of an argument as gospel? I suppose the answer to that is a false sense of security and self righteousness enboldened by an ideological devotion to a single set. 

Political debate is then reduced to the "my team is better" mentality. 

It is a shame.


----------



## luckydob

Please close this thread...political ramblings are getting old really quick. Can't we all just get along?


----------



## dogface

Put Fox News in Hi-Def. Not because "We Report You Decide", hell I don't care about that. I think they have hotter women.


----------



## gxshiem

OK, I took the CNN tour up in Atlanta last week and all of a sudden the tour guide said *CNN Headline News* is already being recorded in HD and will be broadcast in HD later this year. The regular CNN will follow thereafter.


----------



## n3ntj

DaveTinNY said:


> PBS HD
> I'll take The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer any time over the Breaking News a**holes like Faux, CNN, etcetera. "News," for the most part, whether in HD or not is an absolute joke these days.
> If they showed what was really happening in Iraq, maybe the fool in the White House wouldn't be sending even more troops into this failure.
> I'm a vet.


Does your local PBS station not broadcast in HD? Ours has an all HD feed (all HD programming).

Personally, I'd welcome just about any new HD channel. . History, Science Channel, HGTV, CNN, Headline News, Fox News, A&E , National Geographic, etc. plus all sports packages in HD!


----------



## Steve Mehs

I finally cought Fox News Sunday on Fox HD. While the picture quality was great, there's was something about it that didn't look right.


----------



## cforrest

I think Fox News Sunday is just widescreen SD upconverted to 720p!


----------



## purtman

Steve Mehs said:


> I finally cought Fox News Sunday on Fox HD. While the picture quality was great, there's was something about it that didn't look right.


Take a throat lozenge to help you with that cough!:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## DonCorleone

gxshiem said:


> OK, I took the CNN tour up in Atlanta last week and all of a sudden the tour guide said *CNN Headline News* is already being recorded in HD and will be broadcast in HD later this year. The regular CNN will follow thereafter.


Am I missing something here? Why would you be recording the show in HD but not broadcasting it?


----------

