Email This to a Friend
Excluded From the Debate of the Party of “Inclusiveness”
Did you know a Democratic presidential debate was broadcast from Iowa on Saturday night? If you didn't, you're not alone. Eric Scheie covered it for Pajamas Media - at least he tried: not just anyone could view the "nationally broadcast" event.
I was honored that Pajamas Media asked me to write about the Democratic Presidential Forum being broadcast on HDNet, and without any hesitation, I said I’d do it, although I did allow that it might take me an hour or so after the debate was over to write my post. After all, I’d have to watch it first, right?
Not so fast!
After agreeing to blog about the debate, I turned on my television to verify the time and channel, and lo and behold, there was no such channel as “HDNet” anywhere on my DIRECTV guide. Thinking I must be crazy or just stupid (for the Democrats would never hold a debate on a channel that wasn’t generally available to the public, would they?) I spent quite a bit of time fiddling with the controls looking for the silly channel. (Maybe it was newly added, or inadvertently blocked by my settings, something like that.)
Finally, in desperation, I resorted to Googling “HDNet.” (Yes, I know Googling now constitutes stalking, but this is for a good cause.)
Sure enough, HDNet is supposed to be on DIRECTV, although there’s litigation I don’t understand between them. But the channel listed (79) appeared nowhere on my guide, so I visited the DIRECTV website, where I read it is offered it as an add-on. I figured that I might be able to add it for a night, or maybe just subscribe then cancel after on night, but as I couldn’t figure out how to do this online I finally just called customer service.
Was I in for a shock! As it turns out, the only way to get this channel is to upgrade my monthly service to “HD TV,” (plus pay an extra charge for “special” channels like HDNet), but that even then my existing equipment (which I paid for and had installed) would not work. To actually receive the new signal, I would have to buy a new receiver, and on top of that I’d have to buy a new satellite dish, have old one yanked off the wall and the new one installed!
I love Pajamas Media, but spending hundreds of dollars to watch one lame debate just isn’t what I had in mind. In any case, they wouldn’t have been able to install the blasted thing in time for tonight.
It did occur to me to call a couple of friends who watch a lot more TV than I do, but they don’t have the right packages. One of them has HD TV through Comcast, but he told me that HDNet isn’t available on Comcast because of another lawsuit.
He also told me that HDNet is the new home of Dan Rather.
So, the Democratic Party — the party of the working class — is broadcasting tonight’s debate from an elitist network run by billionaire Mark Cuban that requires expensive equipment and high monthly charges to access.
What’s up with that? Is this a signal that despite the egalitarian rhetoric, that they’re actually the party of the rich and famous? Imagine the outcry if the GOP broadcast its debate from fancy network that ordinary people couldn’t access. There’d be cries that the Republicans were in a “gated community.”
Well I’d say this is a RATHER gated community! And I’m feeling locked out by their lack of inclusiveness.
But they need not worry. I won’t take hostages to demand access. Rather, Instead, I’ll just blind-blog the debate. I couldn’t watch it, and so I can’t tell you what the questions or the answers were. But here’s what I think probably happened.
Hillary won, hands down.
For starters, she handled herself so skillfully yesterday that she’ll be greeted as a conquering hero.
In the interest of actually writing up the debate, I decided to modify this news report, which I will modify with the help of “age progression” so that it becomes an accurate account of what might as well have happened on the network of and for the rich and famous:
HDNet aired a live Democratic presidential debate on Saturday night, making it the first channel broadcast exclusively in high definition to do so. In another first, the debate also made modern history as the first broadcast that the majority of Americans found themselves wholly unable to watch.
Even though most Iowans don’t get HDNet, the debate (”focusing on black and Latino issues — intriguing, given the lack of blacks and Latinos in Iowa“) was held in Iowa on billionaire Mark Cuban’s network. It was moderated by NPR’s Michele Norris and PBS’s Ray Suarez and was broadcast exclusively on HDNet — the network where exclusivity matters the most!
HDNet is an exclusive (and we do mean exclusive) satellite/cable channel that airs high definition programming 24/7, including more original HD programming than any other networks in the same category. The debate was the first presidential debate to air on a specialized HD channel.
Frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were present, as was Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson.
The debate aired at 8:00 PM Eastern time, with a pre-debate show which started at 7:30. HDNet’s lead news anchor Dan Rather hosted the exclusive 30-minute preview.
The event was so exclusive that excluded bloggers were forced to speculate about in advance about a debate that might as well have happened where they could watch it.
HDNet hopes to air more exclusive debates in the future, for the rich and famous only.
There.
Sorry I didn’t see it, folks, but I hope I did OK in what was my first-ever blind-blogging exclusive.
Because of the exclusive nature of the debate, I think it’s fair to add a word about Hillary’s exclusivity. While her aloofness to reporters is legendary (Howard Kurtz recently described her style as “Catch me if you can,“), this debate raises the bar considerably, carrying her aloofness to a an unprecedented height of disdain. No longer is Hillary Clinton off limits merely to reporters. This debate sent a clear signal that she and the other Democrats are off limits to most Americans.
If the general public doesn’t approve, why, let them buy an expensive new dish!
Eric Scheie is a licensed California attorney (UC Berkeley ‘78; USF Law School ‘82) currently living in the Philadelphia area. A registered Republican, war-supporting, small “l” libertarian and self-styled “culture war traitor” he writes (often satirically) about cultural issues and politics at ClassicalValues.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
23 Comments
1. Crimson Ghost:Looks like Cuban “redacted” an entire presidential primary debate. I bet it was a total flop.
Dec 2, 2007 - 3:53 am 2. Solomon:Eric, you could have flown to my place in Boston for less than it would have cost you to upgrade. Do you even have High-def TV?
Dec 2, 2007 - 7:35 am 3. Inquisitive:Am I missing something here?
Isn’t it possible that this isn’t the fault of the Democratic Candidates at all but possibly due simply to the fact that the Big Networked Channels simply didn’t invite them to debate or that they weren’t offering a suitable atmosphere/deal? Given the flakiness of the YouTube debates we’re seeing, isn’t it possible that the democratic candidates wanted to “opt out” of flakey, meaningless forums? Perhaps I’m off the track but given the flakiness of so many of today’s mainstream Journalists I’d have wonder if perhaps HDNet was the only reasonable option for these candidates. I have never seen HDNet; I’m not a subscriber, so I know absolutely nothing about them; I’m just trying to decide what to make of all the facts presented.
Dec 2, 2007 - 11:33 am 4. Sam:It sounds like it was a “debate” meant to cater to racial demagogues and other assorted radical constituencies and Mark Cuban’s channel was the insurance against claims of a closed door secret debate, which it essentially was.
They didn’t want main stream exosure of the expected pander-fest so decided to satisfy the demands to cow-tow in this way.
The transcript for this must be obtained, and even better, matched to a tape of the event. I’ll bet it wont be easy.
Dec 2, 2007 - 11:50 am 5. mark cuban:you arent going to be very happy come feb 09 when we go all digital…
im shocked you are online, after all, that required you going out and buying a computer and an internet connection…
welcome to the real world.
we wanted to carry the debate. And we will carry more.
Elitist network ?
are you serious ?
Dec 2, 2007 - 12:28 pm 6. Bill Bradley:Okay then. The umpteenth Democratic debate — on a Saturday night in Iowa — only aired on an obscure TV outlet.
Dec 2, 2007 - 3:15 pm 7. Crimson Ghost:No, going online does not require “going out and buying a computer and an internet connection.”
It requires going to a library, a coffee shop, a school, work, Kinkos, or a cellphone. None of these places have HDNet.
I doubt that this is actually Cuban, but the response is still the same. For you, “The Real World,” is a MTV show. For the rest of us, it is what goes on outside our front door.
Dec 2, 2007 - 3:36 pm 8. Sam:Okay, “Mr. Cuban”, if that is really you why don’t you email a complete transcript to this blog?
Dec 2, 2007 - 4:06 pm 9. Eric Scheie:“you arent going to be very happy come feb 09 when we go all digital”
It won’t affect me at all. I have an HD-ready flat screen TV, and I subscribe to DirecTV, so I’m not all that technologically behind. But everything works fine and I don’t see why I should have had to spend hundreds of dollars just to watch a debate.
Dec 2, 2007 - 5:40 pm 10. Tim:Yeah, I get HDNET. I don’t watch it as they make a huge deal about the real missing village idiot from Texas, Dan Rather’s show. HDNET is like HBO, ramming their liberalism down your throat, whether you want it or not.
Dec 2, 2007 - 5:57 pm 11. Brendan:Free upgrade to the new 5lnb dish, which you don’t need since HDNet is an Mpeg2 channel(along with HBOHD, ShowtimeHD, EspnHD, Espn2HD, HDNet, HDNet Movies, Universial HD, Discovery HD), but since you’re getting the satellite dish upgrade for free mine as well get the new dish that lets one receive all of DirecTv’s 60-80 HD channels(depending on whose numbers you trust). Plus a free H20 HD receiver which you will get for free since you’ve obviously been a DirecTv customer since pretty close to the beginning if you can’t receive HDnet with your current dish. Finally comes the huge price of $10 for 60-80 HD channels including HDnet(no addional fee for HDNet since Mark Cuban sued Directv and the court ordered Directv to hold off on charging 4.99 for HDNet, HdNet Movies, Universial , MHD, Smithsonian HD, and a couple other I can’t remember.
Ans another thing “Mark Cuban” if that’s your real name, anyone using a dish is getting digital signals. But if one is using cable which still broadcasts some channels in analog through coaxial that is also fine. The only people affected by the digital over-the-air transfer are people with bunny ears who only receive the networks plus UPN(or whatever the hell it’s called now) in analog.
Dec 2, 2007 - 6:04 pm 12. mark cuban:if you have Directv and an HDTV, why wouldnt you take advantage of some of the upgrade programs they have to go to HD ? Just curious ?
We will be doing more events on HDNet. Hopefully more event opportunities will come up.
You should check out HDNet World Report. We also have exclusive HD Space Shuttle Launches and if you havent seen Dan Rather Reports, you havent seen a great news show. You may or may not like Dan Rather, but no where else is a 60 minute news program actually 60 minutes of news.
you can go to http://www.hd.net and watch some of the shows there.
We have 7mm subscribers and are growing about 5pct per month. So a lot of people are catching on. Hopefully over the next 18 months we will catch Showtime in number of subs.
Dec 2, 2007 - 8:21 pm 13. Dr. Droo:Dish Network provides HDNet channels as part of their regular HD package. This game that DirecTV has started with segmenting their HD service is merely a rate hike in disguise.
Dec 2, 2007 - 10:00 pm 14. Dr. Droo:Also, I’m not sure what ‘mark cuban’ is talking about. HDNet is already ‘all digital’, and the mini dish services are ‘all digital’ too. As a matter of fact, most cable TV channels are digital. Cable carriers have been simulcasting digital versions of their analog channels for quite some time.
Ultimately – The only difference will be what comes in over the air, using a regular antenna.
Catching Showtime isn’t exactly a great feat either. Showtime is treated as an itch that no-one wants. It is the only channel that I am regularly telemarketed and mail-spammed about.
I don’t think this is the real Mark Cuban in the least, or there’d be a post on Blogmaverick.com too. Besides, no-one in the broadcast sector could be that out of touch with the ‘digital switch’.
Dec 2, 2007 - 10:08 pm 15. Kevin Murphy:Whatever else you might think about HDNet, it is refreshing to see the billionaire owner of the network respond on the blog.
Dec 2, 2007 - 11:59 pm 16. Melissa:Interesting that this became a forum on HDTV.
I’m crazy about Eric Scheie, although we stand diametrically opposed on most conservative/liberal issues. I love Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, (my almost homey from NC), and would be proud to vote for any of them. Fortunately, Clinton has dropped a bit in the polls; this will take the pressure off her.
Thanks, Eric, for updating me on the HDTV tussle.
Dec 3, 2007 - 10:10 am 17. Bucky Katt:Eric-
Not sure why you think you have to spend hundreds of dollars. I got the upgraded dish and the HD receiver at no cost. We pay $10.00/month for the HD channels. I guess if your balking about $10.00/month HD fees you’re welcome to sit in my kitchen in the Peoples Republic of Montgomery County Maryland to watch HDNet. We’ll treat you to home made turkey soup as well.
Dec 3, 2007 - 1:04 pm 18. Bucky Katt:Eric-
Not sure why you think you have to spend hundreds of dollars. I got the upgraded dish and the HD receiver at no cost. We pay $10.00/month for the HD channels. I guess if your balking about $10.00/month HD fees you’re welcome to sit in my kitchen in the Peoples Republic of Montgomery County Maryland to watch HDNet. We’ll treat you to home made turkey soup as well.
Dec 3, 2007 - 1:05 pm 19. Dr. Droo:Bucky Katt – Can’t get HDNet for 10$ a month, gotta pay 15$ a month to get HDNet. DirecTV is charging 4.99 a month for the HDNet channels. It used to be included in the 10$.
HDNet is now suing DirecTV over it, if memory serves.
Dec 3, 2007 - 1:55 pm 20. Brendan:Funny how Dr. Dooo keeps bringing up Directv’s future increase in cost for stand alone HD channels, channels that don’t have a standard definition component. Why isn’t he telling everyone how much the HD package on Dish costs? Right now all Directv channels cost $10 soon it will be $15, right now Dish Network charges $20 for less HD channels then Directv.
Dec 3, 2007 - 7:22 pm 21. Dr. Droo:You are correct that Dish Network is 20$ a month for HD. At the same time, it costs exactly 0.00 for their HD-DVR (which is 200$ after 100$ rebate on DirecTV).
But – If you do the count out, both actually have basically the same number of National HD channels. (See: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/i-need-my-hdtv/what-satellite-service-is-better-for-your-hdtv-327812.php and http://www.multichannel.com/blog/350000435/post/1430016143.html). Both companies are extremely dishonest in how they ‘count’ channels. Most of the ‘extra’ channels involve subscribing to even more packages (HBO, Showtime, Sports Pack, etc).
However, I brought up the fact that DirecTV is charging 5$ more for the few HDNet channels for a pretty big reason. This reduces the amount of penetration FURTHER in the future if there are other HDNet-broadcast debates/forums. There are many people who won’t bother to pay out any more for their HD Plan and probably won’t even miss HDNet (I watch it for shuttle launches, that’s about it). There’s several cable companies that don’t even have HDNet available, and there is no SD broadcast of HDNet’s programming for those who don’t have a HDTV and HD plan.
People are already relatively excluded by having the debates on cable networks, but this is certainly a new dimension of exclusion. All I can figure is, they didn’t want people to see them.
Dec 3, 2007 - 10:05 pm 22. Crimson Ghost:I think that this “mark cuban” thing is some sort of strange post-bot (maybe not). Let me do a test.
Reply to this if you can:
I’m thinking of a sports team that has a similar name as Tom Cruise’s call sign in Top Gun. What team am I talking about? (you should know)
No response doesn’t prove anything but it would be circumstantial evidence.
Dec 4, 2007 - 12:27 am 23. Eric Scheie:“if you have Directv and an HDTV, why wouldnt you take advantage of some of the upgrade programs they have to go to HD ?”
Because, as I said, I would be required to buy a new dish and a new receiver, and have it installed, and THEN pay the extra monthly charges to watch it. I checked out the prices on the equipment and it is hundreds of dollars; there are no free upgrades.
It is not worth the hassle and expense just to watch a debate.
Melissa thanks for the comment, and Bucky Katt, thanks for the offer!
Dec 5, 2007 - 12:53 pm