A funny thing about just about all the local TV news channels around here, they are all pumped and fluffy about "broadcasting live in High-Definition." For those of us involved in a part of the news business, and even those who just have old TVs, touting HD is as useful as correction fluid for your computer screen.
If I had a high-definition TV, the difference would be that all the ugly TV anchors and reporters would be clearly uglier. Their lack of fashion sense would be painfully obvious with the high color saturation. Their wrinkly, makeup-covered faces would be presented in sharp detail.
However, the newscasts wouldn't be any more useful or accurate or any less sensational. I want to laugh every time one of the channels begins its nightly cast with "live in HD," or when another station has special promos to push their HD-ness like it makes the news any better. Just like a newspaper that redesigns its elements and then tries to convince its readership that it's better now ... it's all packaging with no substance to back it up.
Reminds me, too, of a car Ford currently sells. It's a frumpy, allbeit solid sedan that debuted a few years ago as the Five Hundred. With such an uninspiring name and at least upon first sight looking like something my grandmother wouldn't have considered cool enough to own, it was somewhat of a flop. Now the company has revived the "Taurus" name and applied it to a minor rebeef of the Five Hundred. What's in a name? Maybe something, as "Mustang" evokes decades of crappy "sports" cars that end up being trashed by high school students. But in the end, a new Taurus is still an ugly car, by any definition, even high.
Yeah, I can't say I'm really that into the idea of HD tv. Some of our friends have it, and the only difference I can see is that everyone on tv suddenly has blotchier skin and HUGE pores!