No, the adults aren't spoiled brats since they are paying for the service. When was the last time your children paid the satellite bill?
So, it's OK if I want something, because I paid for it? One on level, I tend to agree. Of course, in the Viacom thread, if you want back the Viacom channels you're still paying for (while DirecTV isn't), you're wrong and--just like the "wisdom" shared in this thread RE: kids and HD--"should just go outside or read a book or something, geez, because we didn't even have Nick/cable/color sets (pick your fav) when I was a kid."
On another level, that's silly, because I don't know a single (good) parent on earth who doesn't want better for their kids than for themselves. And, in that same vein, most parents regularly give up things they
want to afford better things for their children. Is this directly applicable to HD? Sure, at least in the same way I don't make steak for my husband and I--cause we "pay the bills"--and serve my son a hamburger. I want the same quality (or better) for him in everything, including TV that I
But, really, if it makes you feel better ... I
want Disney Jr. in HD. Just like I
want BBC America in HD. And, yes, I
pay the bills. I mean--here's a crazy thought--some parents actually watch TV with
their child(ren) from time to time (or, in our case, for most of his TV viewing), and do not just plop them mindlessly in front of it in their own wing of the house that has all the, "not good enough for grown-ups stuff." :roll eyes:
Disney Jr. has a classic Disney movie night that was one of the main reasons I thought the channel would be great to have in the first place. Those would be movies that are rarely shown elsewhere, that I would watch with
my son, just like I watched Disney's Sunday night show with my
parents as a kid, and still remember it fondly. Television can be a shared experience, not just a mindless idiot box.
Yes, my five-year-old can tell the difference between SD and HD. I don't think it's hurting his development, or his vision, to view this or anything else in SD, and I also don't plan on allowing him to watch TV 24-hours a day. And, yes, he plays outside, and we read lots of books. None of those truths take away from the fact that I still want Disney Jr. in HD because, if it's not, I won't watch it, since the picture quality looks like total crap and I don't want to record or view anything that looks like crap. And, since I, as the parent say what he can and can't watch, that means he won't watch it either. Which, again, is a shame, since Disney Jr., unlike Disney XD HD, is commercial-free (other than promoting their own programming), and while I do allow my son to watch one show in the morning (when he first wakes up and we're getting ready for the day) and one show at night (usually while we're making dinner, cleaning house, etc.) on his own, I only allow him to so via commercial-free channels, because if you don't have kids, you have no idea how easily influenced children are by advertising. They haven't developed the critical thinking or cynicism we adults have to ignore that stuff, resulting in conversations with your three-year-old, like: "Mom I need Sketchers. They have to be Sketchers because the TV said Sketchers make you fast and you get to do skateboarding and other cool stuff if you have them."
As I said RE: the Viacom dispute, never once have I ever, or will ever, suggest that we "need" Disney Jr. in HD--or even to have TV at all--but I "want" (different thing) the service provider I pay money to each month to NOT be adding new channels in SD-only. I want all channels available in HD, shown in HD, especially
new additions, because HD in 2012 should be the default of a company that claims they pride themselves on their HD offerings. (This does not preclude them from adding SD and HD, which covers all those SD-only customers DirecTV has.)
And, yes, long before 2007, DirecTV boasted about their HD content. (Trust me, they did NOT in any advertising claim it was nascent, or didn't even count.) Nope, instead they told customers that they were the "first" to add many HD channels and had every major HD channel any customer could possibly want. (That same argument was made here, again by many of the same names that now claim the reverse: that they already have the most-viewed HD channels, when people began to chaff at the limited channel count that lasted for years.) Revisionist history to prove a point (e.g. "that's crazy, DirecTV didn't even really have HD until 2007"), seems to be a DirecTV (the company that can do no wrong) fanboy specialty.
Edited by susanandmark, 17 July 2012 - 05:53 AM.