The difference between standard-def and HD (even 720p) is stunning; no matter the show it's like cleaning the fry oil off your glasses.
(Sidebar: most if not all widescreen HDTVs can display SD content either stretched (ugh, but some prefer the picture to fill the screen) or in the original aspect ratio - there's no reason your old tapes/DVDs have to look bad).
(Sidebar2: widescreen versions of good movies look much better than fullscreen versions. The immersion into the scene is much more present when you're viewing (most of) the original scene as opposed to a porthole-view into just the actor's face. HD widescreen is good enough that I don't see any reason to set foot in a theatre even for good films any more.) The content providers themselves have fought kicking and screaming to avoid a) going all-digital and b) going HD -- these are separate, and only a) is mandated by the FTC. What little they've put in HD they fight doubly hard to wrap with layers of inconvenience in the form of content protection (HDCP).
The reason IMO is that again, everything becomes very very clear in HD. A "perky" anchor or actress' makeup job might become clearly visible to the audience where it wasn't in low-rez. Studio sets have to be higher-quality to look good. The technical equipment is higher-cost of course, but that's a depreciating cost as the tech becomes mainstream.
On our end, the cost of the set has already dropped; you can get a 27" HD set for ... $375. (quick search through a popular brick-and-mortar store's listing).
Upshot is that those content providers that adopt the new tech will set the pace (and get to define the standards to their benefit); fools like Zucker who crawl backwards will find themselves in bad shape when HD is everywhere. It's analogous to the US automakers trudging along selling the same-old while their competitors pursue R&D; eventually the bill comes due.
Agreed. You don't foster an innovative environment by dismissing progress. The fact that he'd publicly do so is terrible management.