Just heard: MSNBC got the lowest ratings in Inauguration coverage. Why? Could be no HD..

[pink-o]

What is wrong with MSNBC? Fox, CNN even CBNC have HD channels. I would far prefer watching Keith, Rachel or even Tweety than Wolf and Co or any of the mainstream network Talking Heads. But since I sank a ton of gelt into my HDTV 2 years ago, I don't wanna waste it watching analog.

I don't get it. Why haven't they (GE: we bring good things to life) gone High Definition???

[Idealism]

1. I dont know but it pisses me off, too

HD is amazing

[Stephanie]

2. I switched away because they were talking too much.

YMMV

[saged52]

10. totally agree -

I wanted to hear all the speeches and music live - not their chatter

[Lost-in-FL]

13. You are so right... I had to change the channel to C-Span.

I started with MSNBC but could not digest Tweety and his stupid nonsense. Plus I wanted to hear peoples reactions.

[pink-o]

18. Tweety is freakin outta control

I swear, he has orgasms at the sound of his own voice. And Morning HO and Crazy Uncle Pat are pretty damn off-putting as well.

But I really dislike Wolf and Alex Castellanos and Candy Crowley (scary on HD!) as well. So it all ends up being a big toss-up.

Agree about C-Span. They too need HD. And for all you doubters of the format, I have to disagree. The vision and sound is totally superior, when I go visit my Dad with his square box it really seems retro. Technology is the only thing I loved about the 21st century--till now, of course!!!

[Lost-in-FL]

23. I have HD....

but I was so annoyed I had to switch the channel. I wanted to listen to the bands during the parade but when they added tweety (even when I was enjoying Rachel and Chris) it did it for me.

I won't watch CNN, heck no.

I which HDnet had the whole inauguration with Dan Rather!!! Maybe when Obama wins again in 2012!!

[relayerbob]

34. Agreed, they talked too much

I sent them an email griping about it in the middle of the day, but of course, that made no difference.

[Jeanette in FL]

40. Same here

I switched to CSPAN because I couldn't take the mindless chatter of Chris Matthews. He wouldn't shut up for a minute.

[onehandle]

3. They will have HD "in the second quarter." They've gotten their hands slapped for this.

By people in media circles. Their president is known to be cheap, cheap, cheap.

We watched MSNBC because CNN's HD channel has really annoying banner graphics that take up 25% of the screen.

And we despise Blitzer.

[peace13]

4. Greater percentage of there viewers were on the Mall!! n/t

[leftynyc]

55. That was my thought as well

And I'm thinking the 7.7 million who watched on the internet from work probably brought their numbers down as well.

[mzmolly]

5. Is there a link?

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

7. Oops, nevermind. It appears many people "watched" online via MSNBC

etc.

www.variety.com/VR1117998855.html

Preliminary Nielsen estimates show that 29.2% of U.S. households were watching the presidential inauguration -- easily the largest in decades but below the 37.4 household rating for Reagan. Obama's figures include viewership on roughly 15 broadcast and cable networks, while the Reagan ceremony was viewed only on ABC, CBS and NBC; also, they do not include the huge online viewing this time around, with CNN.com, FoxNews.com and MSNBC.com all reporting record streaming video traffic.

Here's more ~ Note that NBC came in on top:

Among the viewers recorded by Nielsen, NBC and anchor Brian Williams scored the largest share during the seven main hours of coverage, with an average audience of 8.7 million people. ABC, with its anchor trio of Charles Gibson, Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos, placed second with 8.4 million. CNN attracted 5.8 million, beating out CBS and anchor Katie Couric, who drew 5.6 million. Fox News Channel placed fourth with 3.6 million and MSNBC pulled in 2.2 million.

LATIMES

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. I could not give a rats ass about HD

Really...

WILL NOT replace the Teevee until it fails... PERIOD

[Tangerine LaBamba]

14. Same here

And, by that time - all the TVs here are in good shape - imagine what the prices will be like.....................

[smalll]

19. Me too.

Nice to see there's at least a few people left who aren't techno-snobby conspicuous consumption addicts here at DU. All the HD dick-swingers, the "Who else is rich, cool and important like me and owns a Blackberry, check in for a circle-jerk!" thread, and yes, even the "6-year-old Microsoft software" hyper-ventilaters are a little hard to take! :shrug:

[NashVegas]

31. Seriously Overrated

But, but, but it's *so important* to have a crystal clear 52-inch screen!

[CreekDog]

47. SD looks fairly blurry on large screens

it's true.

[Dukkha]

33. I've had an HDTV for 4 years now

and STILL no HD receiver. I only use it to watch DVD movies and TV on the old 4:3 tube. I only watched CSPAN coverage for that wonderful sound of silence. No blabbering idiots sitting in front of laptops stating the obvious and uninformed opinions. No news ticker and banners cluttering up the screen. Cable news is now the new MTV contributing to the ADD of viewers.

[ThomWV]

41. I could not have said it better.

We've had an HDTV for a couple of years now and even though we have satellite TV I've never signed up for the HD service, we just use the capability with DVDs.

I certainly wouldn't watch Wolf because he was in HD, over watching C-span where I don't have to hear some halfwit tell me what he things about what I can plainly see and then misinterpret what I can not.

[jakefrep]

45. I feel the same way.

HD isn't so special that I feel the need to replace a perfectly good standard TV that can be easily adapted to digital programming.

[NNN0LHI]

51. I discovered the improvement in the audio quality alone is worth going HD

http://abc.go.com/site/hdtvfaq.html

Digital Sound

Just as your CDs sound better than your old audiocassette tapes, HD's digital audio sounds significantly better than standard television's analog sound. Some HD programs include Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound. Properly decoded, each audio track can be sent to a different speaker, creating a three-dimensional sound field in your living room. Many of ABC's prime time programs contain Dolby Digital surround sound for your listening pleasure.

[NOW tense]

8. I got tired of the brown nosing

[Pryderi]

9. I wish CSPAN had hi-def. I ended up watching CNN.

[NOW tense]

11. I tried to stream with CSPAN

I couldn't get in.

[Captain Hilts]

12. M-A-T-T-H-E-W-S. nt

[Lex]

17. Yep. He's horrible.

[Generator]

26. Yeah that's another thing

Him on a big screen and HD-I'm not sure my stomach is up to that. Bizarre foods is a toss up with Matthews that's for sure.

[MarjorieG]

15. CNN the go-to choice in public spaces, an improvement over Fox, but still...

[bevoette]

16. that's exactly why we watched CNNHD (nm)

[Snotcicles]

20. How many other areas beside mine are there that Comcast won't offer MSNBC? nt

[Generator]

28. My comast here in portland switched it to digital

last year-I think that's what you mean. You have to have digital. But now we have Verizon and it's cheaper and better. (but we had to move to get it)

[Raine]

21. Too much talking

I didn't watch them either because at that time I wanted straight coverage and less chit chat. I switched between CNN and CSPAN

[L0oniX]

22. GE is too busy building subs and bombs ...can't be bothered with silly HD

[Contrary1]

24. For whatever reason, MSNBC came through a bit fuzzy here Inauguration Day...

I switched over to CNN. But then, Neilsen didn't contact me. ;-)

[Generator]

25. We just got the HD

And I am ashamed to say I am a big convert. I was all who gives a shit if it's prettier before..it's the story that matters..I don't want to see their pimples etc. but it's just so damn cool.And YES some people do look mighty REAL shall we say in HD-and almost too much-like that food channel with the weird foods-that is not for the faint of heart in HUD.

But this was exactly it for me on inauguration day. I watched NBC and CNN mostly-the color was almost like being there.

[Coexist]

27. where did you find that?

[illuminaughty]

29. Many have said Matthews. I don't have high def TV but

IMO MSNBC needs to get their act together. I love Keith, love Rachel, but I would like a 24 hr. news channel to at least make an attempt to deliver news on the weekend. It's embarrassing that the weekend before the Inaug. they were showing repeats of Election footage and "Lockup".

It's not like their parent company doesn't have the budget. They didn't even cover the crisis in Gaza on weekends. You can't be a "24 hr. news channel" and have banker's hours. I'd love for them to succeed, but it IS like they don't get it.

[SoCalDem]

30. TOO MUCH TALKY-TALK/SCREAMY-SCREAM

I watched the whole inauguration day on BBC-America..

low key, intelligent commentators who paused to soak in the enormity of it.. Live feeds from Kenya, France, Samoa, and other places...and in lulls, short historical pieces about the election and some inaugural history..

and few commercials too...

I did flip every so often to MSNBC and whenever I did, I saw an edgy pissing contest between Keith & Tweety..

CNN was unwatchable..

[Moochy]

38. 'edgy pissing contest between Keith & Tweety'

That's what I saw on MSNBC too.. I ended up watching CNN on mute.

[Jane Austin]

32. When Tweety kept jabbering pure nonsense

I had to switch to C-Span.

Honestly, he needed some Ritalin

Among other things, he said Joe Biden would be Obama's Ed McMahon (which Eugene Robinson called him on) and he likened Hail to the Chief to some 1950's teevee western in old fashioned-ness.

I think his mind was like an empty tuna can with a bb rattling around in it, and every time it ricocheted off the side it pinged out a new thought, to which he immediately gave voice.

I have my own ADD problems, and listening to him prattle on without end was maddening.

(ed: damn homonyms)

[Connie_Corleone]

35. I watched CNN because it was in HD.

Even the big 3 networks showed the inauguration in HD. I wanted to watch MSNBC but they blew it by not having it in HD.

[nancyr]

36. Too much mindless chatter...

C-span is so much more bearable. I don't think HD has much to do with it. It's a matter of choosing not to listen to pundits.

[Cleita]

37. Many cable companies have them batched in a pay extra package.

All the other news channels are free but MSNBC is extra. Yet, for some reason or other they are still killing in the ratings over all. Don't worry everyone has to go HD on February 17th I believe. I do get MSNBC on HD right now. I think your cable company is screwing you over.

[crispini]

39. HD is not the same as digital. nt

[Cleita]

52. Potatoes, potahtoes. Should I have said digital. My bad. Whatever, on

that date in February, there is no more analog TV. Is that better?

[crispini]

53. Well, considering that the OP is about MSNBC being in HD,

and people were complaining that the channel isn't in HD, I'd like to point out that in fact, MSNBC will NOT necessarily be going HD in February, which your post seems to imply. They're not the same thing.... the question is, when is MSNBC going to splash out some dough on the expensive cameras and new sets that HD requires. ;)

[Cleita]

57. I actually get a really good picture on my digital TV of MSNBC so

I was surprised that it's not HD. I also have satellite which is already digital.

[arcadian]

42. I think they were the only ones with an actual studio on the Mall too.

[recoveringrepublican]

43. I know it's probably not because of this, but I don't watch them because their CC sucks

I rarely have a problem with CNN (though they don't CC show rerunning after 1 am, even though the shows were originally CC). I would love to watch Olberman, Maddow, but the company who CC the shows just sucks. I watch CCN by default since i'm not going to watch FOX (though their CCing of shows is excellent).

[OwnedByFerrets]

44. I would rather watch MSNBC using composite video rather than

the others in HD. Content means something to me.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

46. I can't take the blather from any of them - I watched C-SPAN

When I turned on MSNBC that morning it was Tamron Hall who was yammering. I know Tamron has admirers here but for years she was one of our local Fox morning anchors and she never impressed me.

Then I realized Matthews would soon be spewing so I started flipping around the channels. Well, god. All these anchors blather on and on like they're covering the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade. So I switched to C-SPAN and was very happy.

[LeftHander]

48. I turned CBS off when they started reading excerpts of the speech.

Totally disrespectful. I turned over to NBC they shutup through most of the ceremony.

[tinymontgomery]

49. I watched cspan

no commentary was what I was after. Didn't need or want to hear some talking head tell me what I was watching or ruining the moment.

[lavndrblue]

50. I switched because of

their not broadcasting in HD. I wanted a clear picture. It is really absurd that MSNBC is the only major network station that doesn't have an HD channel.

[AlCzervik]

54. after 5 minutes of msnbc i changed it over to cspan, Matthews still sucks as much as he

did on the day when he was spanking it over Bush in his flight suit.

[Renew Deal]

56. I think HD is part of it. But MSNBC is an acquired taste.

They're the network for political junkies that want an inside view.

[anonymous171]

58. They talk too fucking much. Especially Matthews. nt

[madfloridian]

59. Many cable companies have put MSNBC into a higher package, costing more.

Some people just don't get it anymore.