I assume you mean no video camera? There is at least one photo.

Who knows. I wonder if that's a Nikon D90 or Canon 5D Mk II, then the photog. can have it both ways!! (those 2 cameras can do HD videos too, for those who don't know)

Again: "Craig, the White House lawyer, said in a statement Wednesday evening: "We believe the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately yesterday. Yet the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of the abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the oath a second time."

Doesn't sound like just a formality to me.

Go figure, a constitutional lawyer and his law guy want to do it by the good paper.

I see nothing wrong with that! I could get used to it!

in fact, it's not without precedent:
ABC's Terry Moran adds, this has happened twice before: Chester Arthur in 1881; Calvin Coolidge in 1923.

I assume you mean no video camera? There is at least one photo.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/01/21/obama.oath/art.obama.roberts.wh.jpgCNN is saying there is no video, HD or otherwise.


I had another thought too. One other way around this would be to administer the oath any time before noon. That way when noon strikes the constitutional requirements are automatically are satisfied with out any room for interpretation.

I too thought high noon could have been reserved for the oath. But I think Obama was a little laid back and wanted everyone to enjoy the show.

Add:http://www.popsci.com/content/inauguration-day

We look like ants, but from the tv shots looked like more people were there.

No one has commented on the issue that bothered me most during the telecast. I watched ABC 98% of the time and found the audio issues annoying. There were definite sync issues and I noticed the picture blip a bit when they correct it. A couple of times I was seeing a crowd shot and heard a pre-echo --- part of the speech that supposedly hadn't happened yet. Then a quick cut to the podium and I'd hear it in supposed real time.

A couple of times I was seeing a crowd shot and heard a pre-echo --- part of the speech that supposedly hadn't happened yet. Then a quick cut to the podium and I'd hear it in supposed real time.
Sounds like ABC was incorrectly using their own audio on the crowd shots, which didn't sync with the pool feed.

Well, the Oath is part of that pomp and circumstance, isn't it? One might argue, the most important part.Not for me. As a matter of fact, the less p&c, the better.


The people elect the President; they have a right to hear him take that Oath, just as they have for all who have come before him.Agree.


P&C are important; heck, the Brits still love their monarchy, probably will never give it up, and that's all about P&C. ;) A prime reason why I'm against it. If the UK had dumped the monarchy back a hundred years ago, or so, I think they would have a completely situation now. And not for the worse.

I assume you mean no video camera? There is at least one photo.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/01/21/obama.oath/art.obama.roberts.wh.jpg

What's wrong with this picture? The most important item is missing...
(Maybe it's out-of-frame.)

What's wrong with this picture? The most important item is missing...
(Maybe it's out-of-frame.)The Flag... and a Bible.

The Flag... and a Bible.

I'm not sure either is actually necessary or required. If the incoming President was Muslim, he wouldn't be using a Bible would he? Does it say in the Constitution that he has to have his hand on a holy book for the Oath to be "legal"? Is there also a requirement to have a flag - sorry, the flag ;) - present somewhere nearby? (For the record, I'm sure both were there, out of frame of that photo, but it's an interesting question nonetheless.)

I'm not sure either is actually necessary or required.
I’m not sure if they’re required too… but it’s definitely a part of the p & c ;)

I too thought high noon could have been reserved for the oath. But I think Obama was a little laid back and wanted everyone to enjoy the show.

Add:http://www.popsci.com/content/inauguration-day

We look like ants, but from the tv shots looked like more people were there.

From the shadow it looks like that could be an early shot. Not sure what time it was taken, but you kinda have to get a shot when you can as a satellite passes over.

Too bad they didn't get a IR shot so we could see each little person in the areas where there wasn't much grouping going on. I bet a lot of streets were packed.

The Flag... and a Bible.

Not required, but a formality.

Plus I don't think he'd want to use just any old bible after he used Lincolns bible the first time. I wouldn't!

UPDATED: 37.8 Million Watched Obama's Inauguration

Most viewers since Ronald Reagan's first inaugural in 1981

By Marisa Guthrie -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/21/2009 11:15:23 AM MT

CNN Most-Watched Cable News Network For Inauguration Coverage

The final viewer tally is in, and a total of 37.8 million watched the inauguration of Barack Obama according to Nielsen, the most since Ronald Reagan's first inaugural in 1981, which drew 41.8 million.

That 37.8 million figure includes same-day time-shifted viewing to 17 broadcast and cable networks between 10 a.m. and five p.m. But what it doesn't include, and wasn't around to be measured in Reagan's day, was the number of people who monitored the proceedings on the Web.

In addition, millions more watched coverage of various inaugural balls in primetime on broadcast and cable outlets including ABC and CNN and MSNBC and C-SPAN, as well as wrap-up specials on the Big Three networks Tuesday night.

The combined overall household rating for the inauguration in Nielsen’s top 56 metered markets was 29.2%.

That puts Obama way ahead of the second inauguration of George W. Bush four years ago. That inaugural was among the least watched at 11.8% in the top markets with a mere 15.5 million tuning in.

Of course Nielsen’s audience measurement is based on home viewing only and does not account for the potentially substantial number of viewers that watched the inauguration at offices, schools and public spaces.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/162488-UPDATED_37_8_Million_Watched_Obama_s_Inauguration.php

News Web Sites See Record Traffic For Inauguration Coverage

CNN.com has generated more than 136 million page views as of 3:30 p.m. ET

By Marisa Guthrie -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/20/2009 3:36:12 PM MT

News organizations are capitalizing on the worldwide interest in the first truly Web 2.0 president. As of 3:30 p.m. ET on Tuesday, CNN.com had generated more than 136 million page views and CNN.com Live had more than 21.3 million live video streams.

These numbers far surpass the network’s previous record of 5.3 million live streams on Election Day.

FoxNews.com was poised to break 5 million live streams for its inauguration coverage, also a network Web record.

The Internet demand was so intense that CNN had to place users into a queue.

The network built capacity “to handle well above and beyond what was, to our knowledge, the most viewed live video event in Internet history,” according to a statement.

A “waiting room” was set up so that the experience for users in active sessions would not be degraded.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/162452-News_Web_Sites_See_Record_Traffic_For_Inauguration_Coverage. php

little more info on viewership from political polling:

60% claim they saw inauguration live:

Crazy numbers. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113920/Tuned-Inauguration-Happened.aspx)

Six in 10 Americans tuned in live to the presidential inauguration ceremonies on Tuesday. Another 20% heard or read news reports of the event while 20% caught none of it.

The live audience included 70% of nonworking Americans, but also 53% of those currently employed -- suggesting that many workers either took the day off or had the opportunity to watch or hear the ceremonies at work.

Americans were clearly more interested in the inauguration of Barack Obama than they were in George W. Bush's second inauguration four years ago. In 2005, only 40% of Americans said they watched or heard the inaugural ceremonies live.

As for the speech, 81 percent thought it was good or excellent, 12 percent thought it was "just okay".

Limelight Sets Streaming Record on Inauguration Day

Delivers President Obama's address to 2.5 million Internet viewers

By Glen Dickson -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/21/2009 8:42:25 AM MT

Content delivery network (CDN) Limelight Networks, which speeds the delivery of Web video traffic for major media companies such as NBC Universal, says that it set a streaming record Tuesday when it delivered President Barack Obama's inaugural address live over the Internet to an estimated 2.5 million viewers.

Limelight, which notes that the 2.5 million number is equivalent to over two full Nielsen ratings points of a traditional TV viewing audience, says the overwhelming majority of viewers joined a live video stream just before Obama began his inaugural address and remained connected to the live stream for almost the entirety of Obama's speech.

"Today's inauguration is an example of the global power of the Internet as a platform to unite," said Nathan Raciborski, chief technical officer and co-founder of Limelight Networks, in a statement. "Like never before, people from around the world joined together to experience this historic moment. Such a powerful, unifying event was exactly what we envisioned eight years ago when we launched our innovative, network-based CDN, and we are pleased that our platform played such a major role in delivering today's ceremony to the world."

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/162474-Limelight_Sets_Streaming_Record_on_Inauguration_Day.php

Were hype and "box office" numbers always so prevalent? I know the Neilson ratings have been around for a long time, but it seems that used to be insider information for advertisers. More recently, ratings numbers and movies' box office receipts have been treated as news stories. Is this a long-term phenomenon I just missed, or has the public fascination with ratings grown in recent years?

NBC Was Most-Watched Broadcast Network For Inauguration Coverage

CNN garnered the most viewers for the cable news nets

By Marisa Guthrie -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/21/2009 2:54:55 PM MT

Almost 37.8 million viewers watched coverage of Barack Obama’s inauguration (10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday) on about 15 broadcast and cable networks, according to Nielsen. That makes the inauguration of the country’s first African American president the second most-watched inaugural after Ronald Reagan’s coverage 1981 inauguration which was watched by 41.8 million viewers.

NBC was the most-watched broadcast network on Tuesday, averaging 11.4 million viewers from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. followed closely by ABC which averaged 11 million viewers. CNN edged out CBS during the same time period 7.3 million to 7.19 million viewers.

From 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., NBC averaged 8.6 million viewers followed by ABC (8.3 million), CNN (5.7 million) and CBS (5.5 million).

CNN was the most-watched cable news network for Tuesday’s marathon inauguration coverage. Between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. CNN averaged 6.9 million viewers (2.8 million in news’ target sales demographic of 25-54 year olds).

Fox News was second with 4.4 million viewers (1.3 million in the demo). MSNBC, which has banked on its political coverage, averaged 2.5 million viewers (923,620 in the demo).

From 12-12:30 p.m. when President Obama took the oath of office and delivered his inaugural address, CNN viewership surged to 8.4 million (3.4 million in the demo). Fox News was watched by 5.4 million viewers (1.7 million n the demo) and MSNBC had 3 million viewers (1.1 million in the demo).

As the Obama inauguration festivities wound into the evening, CNN averaged 3.7 million viewers (1.5 million in the demo) from 7 p.m. to 1 a.m. Fox News followed with 2.6 million viewers (755,000 in the demo) and MSNBC was third with 1.9 million viewers (712,000 in the demo).

Viewer averages for Obama’s inauguration far outpaced the 2001 inauguration, the last inauguration of a new president.

On Jan. 20, 2001, CNN averaged 1.2 million viewers (6 a.m. to 3 a.m.) compared to 3.9 million for the same time period on Tuesday, while Fox News was watched by an average of 1 million viewers in ’01 compared to 2.5 million on Tuesday. MSNBC averaged 697,000 on inauguration day 2001 compared to 1.6 million on Tuesday.

Additionally, HBO’s inauguration kick-off ball last Sunday night was watched by just over 4 million viewers over three plays in HBO subscriber homes, a big number for the pay cable network. Another 700,000 viewed the event on HBO.com.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/162515-NBC_Was_Most_Watched_Broadcast_Network_For_Inauguration_Cove rage.php

This whole issue shouldn't even be an issue. IMO, the president elect should be taking the oath as the clock strikes noon.

That's what bothered me so much yesterday. Had they not gone to that stupid musical group, he'd have been taking the oath right on time. I checked when they started playing and it was 25 seconds to noon. I was dumbfounded given that they'd have timed the oath PERFECT without the musical piece.

This is just my opinion but I believe the constitution, when taken in it's totality regarding this issue, is saying that the president elect must take the oath while the clock is striking noon so as to satisfy BOTH requirements: 1. He becomes president at noon, and 2. he take the oath. The only way I see to satisfy the constitution is to take the oath at noon exactly.

Constitutional issue solved. :)
I don't know whether you've got a degree or a practice in constitutional law -- I certainly don't -- but enough people who have the credentials to opine on such things are comfortable with how things worked out. Now, having stipulated to my own lack of credentials on the subject, I would note that the constitutional provision concerning the noon hour is a bit of an anachronism insofar as, at the time the Constitution was written and the first Oath of Office taken, the U.S.A. occupied only one time zone, not at least six as it does today. So, in effect, whether President Obama took the oath at noon or 12:05 p.m. EST, he did not become president at the right time in most of the country.:p

Were hype and "box office" numbers always so prevalent?.... or has the public fascination with ratings grown in recent years?
Ratings results have always kicked around, especially when it addresses an agenda;) … definitely a ubiquitous detail on AVS— certainly on the HOTP thread.

Can we please just leave this issue for Constitutional experts? Let's not start claiming to have "the" answer when the experts aren't even in agreement about the oath itself. Being given at noon or not...it's done. If the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and White House council believe the issue is settled...move on.

It has happened twice before and our government still stands.

killjoy ;)

That oath thing was nothin’. The lady presiding over our wedding vows called me by another name and I had to correct her. It brought some laughs and really embarrassed her.

That oath thing was nothin’. The lady presiding over our wedding vows called me by another name and I had to correct her. It brought some laughs and really embarrassed her.

"Do you, Aliens, take this human woman...." I can hear it now! :D

I don't know whether you've got a degree or a practice in constitutional law -- I certainly don't -- but enough people who have the credentials to opine on such things are comfortable with how things worked out. Now, having stipulated to my own lack of credentials on the subject, I would note that the constitutional provision concerning the noon hour is a bit of an anachronism insofar as, at the time the Constitution was written and the first Oath of Office taken, the U.S.A. occupied only one time zone, not at least six as it does today. So, in effect, whether President Obama took the oath at noon or 12:05 p.m. EST, he did not become president at the right time in most of the country.:p

I think it's safe to say that the time of noon specified in the Constitution is as relevant today as it was when it was written because it refers to the time where the oath is administered regardless of how many time zones now exist in the country.

lots of complaints coming from locked out attendees who had tickets to
inauguration but couldn't get in as they shut down the gates.

also people were told not to attend parade if they were at inauguration and so they didn't try, even though they could have gotten there. that explains why the parade route wasn't super crowded.

looks like secret service botched this big time

I think it's safe to say that the time of noon specified in the Constitution is as relevant today as it was when it was written because it refers to the time where the oath is administered regardless of how many time zones now exist in the country.
I know.;) I was just taking what's really a ridiculous discussion into another realm of the absurd.:D
The bottom line is that the individual whom we now know as "President Obama" was elected by the 365 members of the Electoral College whose votes, on a state-by-state basis the following month, were representative of the 53 percent of American voters nationwide who cast individual ballots for Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential Election. Then, on Jan. 8th, those 365 electoral votes were certified in Congress and the deal was done.
Under those terms, former Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois then became President of the United States at the strike of Noon, EST, Jan. 20, 2009.
Oh -- and while he was at it, he also solemly swore that he would "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and (would) to the best of (his) ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Whether he made that pledge in so many words at 12:05, or verbatim at 7:30 p.m., the ultimate outcome of the election on Nov. 4th became reality at Noon EST on the aforementioned date.
As I mentioned in my first post about this, the only thing that's a bit unfortunate is that the historical video chronicle of that momentous ceremony will always contain the Chief Justice's little flub.

.....As I mentioned in my first post about this, the only thing that's a bit unfortunate is that the historical video chronicle of that momentous ceremony will always contain the Chief Justice's little flub.

It will end up as a footnote in history, a factoid, as the other two gaffs have been. What CJ Roberts probably hopes is that it won't be the biggest thing he'll be remembered for. ;)

It will end up as a footnote in history, a factoid, as the other two gaffs have been. What CJ Roberts probably hopes is that it won't be the biggest thing he'll be remembered for. ;)
He has already had an incredible career (even before his current position) and considering the fact that he is only 53 years old with a lifetime appointment...this will be remembered as being very minor. He could swear in a president many, many more times even by his mid-80's.

He has already had an incredible career (even before his current position) and considering the fact that he is only 53 years old with a lifetime appointment...this will be remembered as being very minor. He could swear in a president many, many more times even by his mid-80's.

That's all true, but history has a way of making oddities like this "stick". Not many laymen know very much about the individual accomplishments of former Supreme Court Justices.

I know.;) I was just taking what's really a ridiculous discussion into another realm of the absurd.:D

With the advent of the so-called "blogosphere", an absurd, ridiculous discussion is quickly degenerating into the realm of the sublime as we speak. Very soon now, as sure as Wolf Blitzer will draw a breath in the middle of a sentence, the so-called "main-stream media" will be picking up on this insanity and legitimizing all the conspiracy theory wackos.

That's all true, but history has a way of making oddities like this "stick". Not many laymen know very much about the individual accomplishments of former Supreme Court Justices.
...you caught me. :D I watched every minute of his confirmation hearing. He is the first new CJ in my lifetime. I was interested I guess.

With the advent of the so-called "blogosphere", an absurd, ridiculous discussion is quickly degenerating into the realm of the sublime as we speak. Very soon now, as sure as Wolf Blitzer will draw a breath in the middle of a sentence, the so-called "main-stream media" will be picking up on this insanity and legitimizing all the conspiracy theory wackos.
I could tell you right now, without a single doubt, which group of people will pick up on this. I'm sure I am not allowed to mention the name of the person whom they follow, but they are certainly conspiracy theory wackos.

With the advent of the so-called "blogosphere", an absurd, ridiculous discussion is quickly degenerating into the realm of the sublime as we speak. Very soon now, as sure as Wolf Blitzer will draw a breath in the middle of a sentence, the so-called "main-stream media" will be picking up on this insanity and legitimizing all the conspiracy theory wackos.
I think this one will have played itself out in the mainstream media by tomorrow, at the latest. However, you're right about the "conspiracy theory wackos" and the other wackos in the blogosphere who have been trying since the President first became a candidate to de-legitimize him.

I think this one will have played itself out in the mainstream media by tomorrow, at the latest. However, you're right about the "conspiracy theory wackos" and the other wackos in the blogosphere who have been trying since the President first became a candidate to de-legitimize him.
They (the above mentioned) tend to do that with just about every President. This one just had a few unique aspects to it.

Considering all the chitchat here :rolleyes: regarding the misspoken oath, some might enjoy this OP-ED piece from today’s paper, I did. It’s an interesting literal perspective on the flub.

NY TIMES
January 22, 2009
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR


Oaf of Office

By STEVEN PINKER
IN 1969, Neil Armstrong appeared to have omitted an indefinite article as he stepped onto the moon and left earthlings puzzled over the difference between “man” and “mankind.” In 1980, Jimmy Carter, accepting his party’s nomination, paid homage to a former vice president he called Hubert Horatio Hornblower. A year later, Diana Spencer reversed the first two names of her betrothed in her wedding vows, and thus, as Prince Charles Philip supposedly later joked, actually married his father.

On Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Flubber Hall of Fame when he administered the presidential oath of office apparently without notes. Instead of having Barack Obama “solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States,” Chief Justice Roberts had him “solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully.” When Mr. Obama paused after “execute,” the chief justice prompted him to continue with “faithfully the office of president of the United States.” (To ensure that the president was properly sworn in, the chief justice re-administered the oath Wednesday evening.)

How could a famous stickler for grammar have bungled that 35-word passage, among the best-known words in the Constitution? Conspiracy theorists and connoisseurs of Freudian slips have surmised that it was unconscious retaliation for Senator Obama’s vote against the chief justice’s confirmation in 2005. But a simpler explanation is that the wayward adverb in the passage is blowback from Chief Justice Roberts’s habit of grammatical niggling.

Language pedants hew to an oral tradition of shibboleths that have no basis in logic or style, that have been defied by great writers for centuries, and that have been disavowed by every thoughtful usage manual. Nonetheless, they refuse to go away, perpetuated by the Gotcha! Gang and meekly obeyed by insecure writers.

Among these fetishes is the prohibition against “split verbs,” in which an adverb comes between an infinitive marker like “to,” or an auxiliary like “will,” and the main verb of the sentence. According to this superstition, Captain Kirk made a grammatical error when he declared that the five-year mission of the starship Enterprise was “to boldly go where no man has gone before”; it should have been “to go boldly.” Likewise, Dolly Parton should not have declared that “I will always love you” but “I always will love you” or “I will love you always.”

Any speaker who has not been brainwashed by the split-verb myth can sense that these corrections go against the rhythm and logic of English phrasing. The myth originated centuries ago in a thick-witted analogy to Latin, in which it is impossible to split an infinitive because it consists of a single word, like dicere, “to say.” But in English, infinitives like “to go” and future-tense forms like “will go” are two words, not one, and there is not the slightest reason to interdict adverbs from the position between them.

Though the ungrammaticality of split verbs is an urban legend, it found its way into The Texas Law Review Manual on Style, which is the arbiter of usage for many law review journals. James Lindgren, a critic of the manual, has found that many lawyers have “internalized the bogus rule so that they actually believe that a split verb should be avoided,” adding, “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers has succeeded so well that many can no longer distinguish alien speech from native speech.”

In his legal opinions, Chief Justice Roberts has altered quotations to conform to his notions of grammaticality, as when he excised the “ain’t” from Bob Dylan’s line “When you ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose.” On Tuesday his inner copy editor overrode any instincts toward strict constructionism and unilaterally amended the Constitution by moving the adverb “faithfully” away from the verb.

President Obama, whose attention to language is obvious in his speeches and writings, smiled at the chief justice’s hypercorrection, then gamely repeated it. Let’s hope that during the next four years he will always challenge dogma and boldly lead the nation in new directions.

Steven Pinker is a psychology professor at Harvard and the chairman of the usage panel of The American Heritage Dictionary.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22pinker.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Ha! Great read, Lar, thanks. Although I expected to see James K. Kilpatrick's name on that byline. I've enjoyed his column on language for years; my local fishwrap publishes it on Saturdays.

lots of complaints coming from locked out attendees who had tickets to
inauguration but couldn't get in as they shut down the gates.

also people were told not to attend parade if they were at inauguration and so they didn't try, even though they could have gotten there. that explains why the parade route wasn't super crowded.

looks like secret service botched this big time

My understanding was the DC police ran much of the show for security, and were a miserable failure. In fact, I can't find it, but the DC Police released a statement that it took much longer then expected to get people through security because they didn't account for people wearing winter jackets. In DC. In January.

That's incompetence if I've ever seen it.


edit: found it (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/01/21/0121inaugtickets.html)

Wow! Pages and pages of rambling on. So, back to the original question: was this Inauguration in HD? I was at work during the time it was on and we watched it on a regular old fashioned SD tube, so I don't know if it was in HD or not.

Wow! Pages and pages of rambling on. So, back to the original question: was this Inauguration in HD? I was at work during the time it was on and we watched it on a regular old fashioned SD tube, so I don't know if it was in HD or not.


The thread title might be a clue.

Quite the circus atmosphere around the Capitol once the choo choo train with the ringleader got there. I liked the little kid on TV, when asked what the inauguration celebrations mean to him. "It really fills me up. Uh huh, I'm full of myself".

The "We Are One" show at Lincoln Memorial was something else. Really felt the love for America with some of the songs. The choirs were great. Some lines were pretty poignant, like Mellencamp's, "boy ya gonna be president, but just like everything else, those dreams kinda came and went".

U2's, "Early morning, April 4, Shot rings out in the Memphis sky, Free at last, they took your life, They could not take your pride." Springsteen, Pete Seeger and Seeger's grandson (The Mammals) doing This Land Is Your Land was a highhlight. Pete was sure into it, wasn't even wearing a coat.


PERFORMANCES AND SPEAKERS AT THE "WE ARE ONE" CONCERT:

Star-Spangled Banner, Master Sgt. Caleb Green

Denzel Washington

The Rising, Bruce Springsteen

Laura Linneyand Martin Luther King III

Lean on Me, Mary J. Blige

Steve Carell and Jamie Foxx

A Change Is Gonna Come, Jon Bon Jovi and Bettye LaVette

Tom Hanks

Shower the People, James Taylor, John Legend and Jennifer Nettles

Marisa Tomei

Pink Houses, John Mellencamp

Queen Latifah

My Country, 'Tis of Thee, Josh Groban, Heather Headley and the Gay Men's Chorus of Washington (D.C.)

George Lopez and Kal Penn

One Love, will.i.am, Sheryl Crow and Herbie Hancock

Tiger Woods

You'll Never Walk Alone, Renee Fleming and the U.S. Naval Academy Glee Club

Jack Black and Rosario Dawson

Medley including American Pie, Shout and We Shall Be Free, Garth Brooks and the Washington Youth Choir

Ashley Judd and Forest Whitaker

Higher Ground, Stevie Wonder, Usher and Shakira

Samuel L. Jackson

•Pride (In the Name of Love) and City of Blinding Lights, U2

•This Land Is Your Land, Bruce Springsteen, Pete Seeger, Tao Rodriguez-Seeger and the Washington Youth Choir

•America the Beautiful, Beyonce and cast

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inauguration Day:

Decent speech, looked like he had it memorized. Too bad they flubbed the oath.

For some reason our office had the TV on Bloomberg. The pundits there gave Yo Yo and Aretha no r e s p e c t, apparantly not caring how her "country tis of thee" sounds as they rambled on and on. On the screen, between the financial tickers with all the red arrows scrolling across the bottom and the talking heads superimposed, Aretha's far out hat could barely fit in what space was left.

Well, good thing dancing isn't in the prez' job description. But their song, At Last, which they danced to at each ball, doesn't allow for much in the way of moves. Their awkward twirl move was good for some big smiles. Obama did do some heavy bumping to Signed Sealed Delivered though.

Looked like it would have been fun to ball hop around the Convention Center, although I guess the Neighborhood Ball was the only one open to the public. Enjoyed will.i.am. He had a fun and lyric decipherable act. Had to smile at Kid Rock's answer to whether he likes Fall Out Boy as they played behind him. Enjoyed Sting's Brand New Day with Stevie on harmonica. Liked everything Stevie did. After the likes of Blige and Carey and Keys warbled their dreary songs, it was especially nice to hear (and see) Shakira belt out Van's shuffling Bright Side Of The Road.

How about The Dead playing the Mid Atlantic Ball per Obama's invitation? With that, maybe the Beach Boys will get their 4th Of July gig back,,, with Brian.

The thread title might be a clue.
Yes, but then the OP said in the first post: "Please tell me the Inauguration will be in HD?" This means that he/she doesn't know if it will be, in fact HD. But since you said what you just said, then I'm assuming that, yes, it was in HD. Thanks a bunch! Have a great day and a wonderful weekend. :)

looks like secret service botched this big timeDisagree 100%.

In this case, the Secret Service's primary job was to protect the President. All other considerations come after.

Yes, but then the OP said in the first post: "Please tell me the Inauguration will be in HD?" This means that he/she doesn't know if it will be, in fact HD. But since you said what you just said, then I'm assuming that, yes, it was in HD. Thanks a bunch! Have a great day and a wonderful weekend. :)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15602834&postcount=103

Ken is obviously correct; the Secret Service is about one thing, and it ain't our amusement or entertainment.

So, back to the original question: was this Inauguration in HD?

Yes. It's over and you missed it in HD. Maybe you can watch the next one in 2012. :rolleyes:

Yes. It's over and you missed it in HD. Maybe you can watch the next one in 2012. :rolleyes:
Um, Tuesday Jan. 20th was a business day. So chances are: majority of people missed watching the Inauguration in the comforts of their own home. Most people had to watch it at work, like me. Let me guess, you took the day off just so you can see it in HD. How clever! ;)

Um, Tuesday Jan. 20th was a business day. So chances are: majority of people missed watching the Inauguration in the comforts of their own home. Most people had to watch it at work, like me. Let me guess, you took the day off just so you can see it in HD. How clever! ;)
Or, he could have used one them new-fangled "DVR" thingies to duplimecate it...

Or, he could have used one them new-fangled "DVR" thingies to duplimecate it...
Recorded content just degrades the quality. So, the picture isn't as good as it should be. Besides, who records live content? When it airs live, you watch it live. That's the way it goes.

Recorded content just degrades the quality. So, the picture isn't as good as it should be. Yeah, sure, your absolutely right, that is, if you’re recording onto a VCR.

Besides, who records live content? When it airs live, you watch it live. That's the way it goes. Then why so curious?

Recorded content just degrades the quality. So, the picture isn't as good as it should be. Besides, who records live content? When it airs live, you watch it live. That's the way it goes.
Who records live content? ...people who use DVR's.

Recorded content just degrades the quality. So, the picture isn't as good as it should be. Besides, who records live content? When it airs live, you watch it live. That's the way it goes.
I DVR college BB all the time (the only way to watch it during the regular season) and it isn’t degraded one bit.

Recorded content just degrades the quality. So, the picture isn't as good as it should be.
If you have a DVR, you're always watching recorded content since it's always running through the hard drive. Watching the recording later won't change it at all. Try again.

Besides, who records live content? When it airs live, you watch it live. That's the way it goes.
Who made that rule?

My parents watch the news they recorded when they get home since they weren't there to watch it live. I have friends who watch football games on delay so they can skip all the TV timeouts. I've recorded shuttle launches since they often happen at odd hours. The Olympics has been recorded before it even reaches your home pretty much any time it's not in the US.

In the case of this event, people may have watched one station's coverage live, then checked out another station's coverage time shifted. Other people may have recorded it for posterity. Finally, some people may have recorded it because...gasp!...they weren't home to see it! Shocking, I know...

You sound like one of those network execs who thinks we should show up for primetime programming at 8PM every night - and sit through every commecial break, even if our bladders are about to burst.

Um, Tuesday Jan. 20th was a business day. So chances are: majority of people missed watching the Inauguration in the comforts of their own home. Most people had to watch it at work, like me. Let me guess, you took the day off just so you can see it in HD. How clever! ;)

Um... so what? If watching in HD is/was so important to you or the masses, take the day off and watch in HD.

You guessed/assumed wrong. But, I was at home and I did watch in HD. Stop blowing smoke (or whining).

Talk to your teacher/principal at school and ask them to get an HDTV.

Recorded content just degrades the quality. So, the picture isn't as good as it should be. Besides, who records live content? When it airs live, you watch it live. That's the way it goes.

A DVR records the incoming program stream and plays it back without alteration. The picture is identical to the live broadcast. Who watches live TV, people who like suffering through horrendously long commercial breaks?

Um... so what? If watching in HD is/was so important to you or the masses, take the day off and watch in HD.

You guessed/assumed wrong. But, I was at home and I did watch in HD. Stop blowing smoke (or whining).

Talk to your teacher/principal at school and ask them to get an HDTV.
If you didn't take the day off, then why weren't you at work? Retired? A stay at home husband? :confused:

Wasn't whining, just curious.

Why weren't you at work? Retired?
I don't really see how that is any of your business, but let's list the possibilities.

Retired
Disabled
Vacation
Medical leave
Sick
Self-employed
Works from home
and others as well...

Maybe he/she works for Monster and received some time off due to a personal sales record in December for overpriced audio/video cables to consumers who didn't know any better.

Recorded content just degrades the quality. So, the picture isn't as good as it should be. Besides, who records live content? When it airs live, you watch it live. That's the way it goes.

I don't watch ANY live sports live anymore. I record every game I watch. If a game starts at 8:00 I'll set it to record and start watching about an hour later so I can 30 second skip through commercials and timeouts.

I don't really see how that is any of your business, but let's list the possibilities.

Retired
Disabled
Vacation
Medical leave
Sick
Self-employed
Works from home
and others as well...

Maybe he/she works for Monster and received some time off due to a personal sales record in December for overpriced audio/video cables to consumers who didn't know any better.
Yeah, you're right. It's none of my business. But the poster has no right to personally attack me for asking a simple yes or no question, which is what the thread was about. If he wants to personally attack me, then I feel that I should ask questions.

Who made that rule?

My parents watch the news they recorded when they get home since they weren't there to watch it live. I have friends who watch football games on delay so they can skip all the TV timeouts. I've recorded shuttle launches since they often happen at odd hours. The Olympics has been recorded before it even reaches your home pretty much any time it's not in the US.

In the case of this event, people may have watched one station's coverage live, then checked out another station's coverage time shifted. Other people may have recorded it for posterity. Finally, some people may have recorded it because...gasp!...they weren't home to see it! Shocking, I know...

You sound like one of those network execs who thinks we should show up for primetime programming at 8PM every night - and sit through every commecial break, even if our bladders are about to burst.
Really, everyone I know that uses a DVR records TV shows, but with Live content, they don't record it because, well, it's live. I once recorded a live program and everyone just laughed at my face. Ever since then, I vow to never record live program again.

Yeah, you're right. It's none of my business. But the poster has no right to personally attack me for asking a simple yes or no question, which is what the thread was about. If he wants to personally attack me, then I feel that I should ask questions.

You asked a question when the answer was provided multiple times on multiple pages.

Wow! Pages and pages of rambling on. So, back to the original question: was this Inauguration in HD? I was at work during the time it was on and we watched it on a regular old fashioned SD tube, so I don't know if it was in HD or not.

You weren't attacked. Someone said you missed it and should try again the next time around. You then attacked them and accused them of taking time off to watch.

You asked a question when the answer was provided multiple times on multiple pages.
I did check and all I found were several off-topic posts. I got a headache from cycling through all of them, so I decided to ask.

You weren't attacked. Someone said you missed it and should try again the next time around. You then attacked them and accused them of taking time off to watch.
Ratman attacked me by saying that I missed the Inauguration in HD because I was at work and then shot a sarcastic comment at me when he said I can watch another one in 2012. Since he attacks me for not watching it at home because I was working and then brags to me how he saw it in HD, then I said to myself: why not ask why he was home and not at work.

Yes, but then the OP said in the first post: "Please tell me the Inauguration will be in HD?" This means that he/she doesn't know if it will be, in fact HD. But since you said what you just said, then I'm assuming that, yes, it was in HD. Thanks a bunch! Have a great day and a wonderful weekend. :)

Thread titles get changed when relevent information is found where it makes sense to. At first the thread title was likely ASKING if it would be broadcast in HD. The OP or a mod changed it to say it would be once it was confirmed it would be.

Really, everyone I know that uses a DVR records TV shows, but with Live content, they don't record it because, well, it's live. I once recorded a live program and everyone just laughed at my face. Ever since then, I vow to never record live program again.
When studios record those TV shows, it’s live at the time they record them. ;)

Sounds like you want to get with the program but your friends don’t. Be your own person and do what you want to do, not what someone else wants you to do. They’ll soon come to realize they were living in the Stone Age and you were the progressive one. It’s their loss and your gain.

Thread titles get changed when relevent information is found where it makes sense to. At first the thread title was likely ASKING if it would be broadcast in HD. The OP or a mod changed it to say it would be once it was confirmed it would be.
Oh I see. I was wondering why the post was a question, but the title wasn't. Thanks so much. Have a great weekend. :)

You weren't attacked. Someone said you missed it and should try again the next time around. You then attacked them and accused them of taking time off to watch.

I agree, I don't see a personal attack on xraffle.

I did check and all I found were several off-topic posts. I got a headache from cycling through all of them, so I decided to ask.


Ratman attacked me by saying that I missed the Inauguration in HD because I was at work and then shot a sarcastic comment at me when he said I can watch another one in 2012. Since he attacks me for not watching it at home because I was working and then brags to me how he saw it in HD, then I said to myself: why not ask why he was home and not at work.
He didn't know you were at work at the time. Simply that you had missed it. You didn't provide that information until the next post. His post wasn't an attack at all. He told you had missed it and to try again next time.

Basically, you completely overreacted to his post and now here we are.

Moving on...

Be your own person and do what you want to do, not what someone else wants you to do.
Sadly, it doesn't work that way anymore. We do what society wants us to do. I even quit watching TV shows now because no matter what show I watch, there's always someone that comments: "What? You watch that junk." So from now on, I just watch movies and news. No more TV shows.

Sadly, it doesn't work that way anymore. We do what society wants us to do. I even quit watching TV shows now because no matter what show I watch, there's always someone that comments: "What? You watch that junk." So from now on, I just watch movies and news. No more TV shows.
He was talking about you, not society. Do what you want to do and don't worry about what everyone else thinks.

By the way, if you don't want your friends to criticize what you are watching...just don't tell them. Do you only watch movies that your friends approve of as well.

Be your own person and watch what you enjoy.

I agree, I don't see a personal attack on xraffle.

No personal attack?? Let's see: "You guessed/assumed wrong. But, I was at home and I did watch in HD. Stop blowing smoke (or whining)."
Accuses me of whining, when all I did was ask.

If that isn't enough, he adds this comment: "Talk to your teacher/principal at school and ask them to get an HDTV. "
I said I was AT WORK. But he insists that I'm a little 5 year old that goes to school and watched the Inauguration at my classroom with my little kiddy friends and my teacher.

No personal attack?? Let's see: "You guessed/assumed wrong. But, I was at home and I did watch in HD. Stop blowing smoke (or whining)."
Accuses me of whining, when all I did was ask.

If that isn't enough, he adds this comment: "Talk to your teacher/principal at school and ask them to get an HDTV. "
I said I was AT WORK. But he insists that I'm a little 5 year old that goes to school and I watched the Inauguration at my classroom.
...those comments came after you went on the attack. Go back and look at the order of the posts.

This comment:

Um, Tuesday Jan. 20th was a business day. So chances are: majority of people missed watching the Inauguration in the comforts of their own home. Most people had to watch it at work, like me. Let me guess, you took the day off just so you can see it in HD. How clever! ;)

That comment appeared before the ones you are mentioning. Basically, you attacked first so let's just move on.

Do what you want to do and don't worry about what everyone else thinks.
Easy said than done. If people really didn't care what people think, then there would be no such thing as peer pressure. In today's world, you can't be yourself anymore.

...those comments came after you went on the attack. Go back and look at the order of the posts.

Exactly.

That comment appeared before the ones you are mentioning. Basically, you attacked first so let's just move on.

Yes and this came before mine:
Yes. It's over and you missed it in HD. Maybe you can watch the next one in 2012. :rolleyes:

The question was already answered and I said thank you, but then he felt the need to throw that sarcastic comment at me.

And btw, my comment wasn't an attack. He said I missed the Inauguration, so I asked how he didn't miss it. Is that a crime?

Easy said than done. If people really didn't care what people think, then there would be no such thing as peer pressure. In today's world, you can't be yourself anymore.
...we're talking about TV programs. If peer pressure is keeping you from watching the TV shows you like, I just don't know what to tell you other than to not tell your friends what you are watching.

...we're talking about TV programs. If peer pressure is keeping you from watching the TV shows you like, I just don't know what to tell you other than to not tell your friends what you are watching.
Tell all your friends that you like to watch "The Brady Bunch." Since you don't care about what everyone else thinks, then it shouldn't be a problem telling people that.

Tell all your friends that you like to watch "The Brady Bunch." Since you don't care about what everyone else thinks, then it shouldn't be a problem telling people that.
Maybe, maybe if I was in high school or something alone those lines I could see friends poking fun at what you watch. Not in an adult social group however. Regardless, watch what you want. You don't have to tell your friends if you watch "the Brady Bunch" or anything else.

Maybe, maybe if I was in high school or something alone those lines I could see friends poking fun at what you watch. Not in an adult social group however. Regardless, watch what you want. You don't have to tell your friends if you watch "the Brady Bunch" or anything else.
I used to love watching "The Brady Bunch" when I was a kid. I would still watch it now, but people would just laugh at me. Yeah, in the adult world, people don't just poke fun, but they make unnecessary comments that can be demoralizing.

Hey, maybe I like to watch the Playboy Channel. That's nobody's business but mine. I couldn't care less what other people think about my viewing habits and I don't care about theirs. We have not reached Big Brother's society yet......

I used to love watching "The Brady Bunch" when I was a kid. I would still watch it now, but people would just laugh at me. Yeah, in the adult world, people don't just poke fun, but they make unnecessary comments that can be demoralizing.

It sounds like you need a much thicker skin. Or peel -- as it were.

Tell all your friends that you like to watch "The Brady Bunch."
You watch that garbage! Just kidding. :D Whatever floats your boat, man. You’ve got to get a backbone and enjoy what YOU want to enjoy. Once you get more self-esteem you’re going to be really pissed you didn’t standup for yourself. Be strong, dude! You can do it! Life - live it!

I would still watch it now, but people would just laugh at me.
How in the world would they even know what you watch in the privacy of your own home?

How in the world would they even know what you watch in the privacy of your own home?
Ok, I'll watch The Brady Bunch. I'll buy the Complete Series DVD set tomorrow and I'll proudly display it in my living room. :D

Ok, I'll watch The Brady Bunch. I'll buy the Complete Series DVD set tomorrow. :D
Go for it. Watch what you want to watch. No need to tell your friends. Regardless, and I hate to say this...but if your friends give you that much crap about something so silly...they aren't very good friends.

Wow. I came here to find out about the innaguration and all I find is pages and pages of rambling on about rambling on. I don't know how to use a DVR, don't watch TV shows and I'm a little out of touch. Can someone just tell me if there was an innaguration on Wednesday?

:p

Wow. I came here to find out about the innaguration and all I find is pages and pages of rambling on about rambling on. I don't know how to use a DVR, don't watch TV shows and I'm a little out of touch. Can someone just tell me if there was an innaguration on Wednesday?

:p
The Inauguration was on Tuesday.

The Inauguration was on Tuesday.

Was it in HD?









:rolleyes:

Was it in HD?
ROFL. I get it now.

ROFL. I get it now. Great….:D
...it’s the AVS circle of life.

Good. So sorry for getting this thread way off-topic. That wasn't my intention. So, now let's put this all behind us and get back to talking about The Brady Bunch... I mean, The Inauguration. :D

So..... how 'bout that Oath?

:D (okay, seriously, I'm stopping...)

Or, as Speaker Pelosi said, "Oaf."

Who won the election? All I saw was a black and white newsreel with Truman holding up a newspaper stating that Dewey won (it was not in HD either)! :)

Disagree 100%.

In this case, the Secret Service's primary job was to protect the President. All other considerations come after.

i wasn't there so i don't know who was handling the security checks. i assumed it was the secret services job to organize and operate the security checks because the security checks were there to protect the President.

someone said the d.c. police ran security. if so they botched it big time

Or, as Speaker Pelosi said, "Oaf."Her too? I saw Feinstein do that.

Off topic posts removed.

i wasn't there so i don't know who was handling the security checks. i assumed it was the secret services job to organize and operate the security checks because the security checks were there to protect the President.

someone said the d.c. police ran security. if so they botched it big time

SS dealt with security in the vicinity of president.

DC LEO's for most of the rest of the viewing areas. From what I hear it isn't the first time the departments botched something. Locals have vouched for that.

A Gigapan robotic head image of the Inauguration has been released. If you zoom and pan to the center photo tower, you'll see a Game Creek Video equipment case next to the HD camera...

Pretty slick.

"How I made a 1,474 Megapixel Photo..." (http://davidbergman.net/Obama.html)

I saw the Inauguration in the ultimate HD. I was THERE in the 25th row.