An update on recent technical problems and more from the admin: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/250292/on-technical-difficulties-mod-coverage-and-other-things/p1?new=1
Options
The [TED Fiasco] - What's Actually At Stake
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Wow - it's amazing what one little speech can do.
http://youtu.be/bBx2Y5HhplI
For those who haven't been following this mess, it started when Nick Hanauer, a Seattle based venture investor, did a talk at TED U about exactly who generates jobs and wealth in society - in short, he's pretty sure that a lot of his success is due to luck, not some special talent, and that it is the middle class that is the engine of the economy and society. The speech seemed like it was well received and Hanauer was told that there was support to put his speech up front as the daily speech. Then, the clouds started rumbling in, as the TED curator, Chris Anderson, said that the speech would be too controversial and "partisan" for TED to cover.
Needless to say, this didn't sit well with Hanauer, who has co-authored a book on the topic and has been making the pundit circuit discussing his point. So, he went to the National Journal, and told them what happened with the speech. Which they promptly published in a story. This, in turn, generated a bit of a firestorm, with Anderson sending out a response and finally putting the speech up.
So, some of you are probably asking "What's the problem, Hedgie?" Well, the problem is that the geek community seems to be too quick to take Anderson's response at face value. I think that this is in large part that it's one of their sacred cows up on the grill this time, so they want to just put this out to pasture. But I don't think that's a good idea. I think Hanauer has raised a very good point, and Anderson's response, frankly, makes me feel that this argument is all the more necessary.
So, the first question is "what is the point?" People have been saying "oh, this is just about some whiny rich guy complaining about being censored because TED won't show his talk." To which I will ask you to do the following - please go read the National Journal article linked above. Then answer this - how many times does it mention the word "censorship" at all? Here's the answer: none. The point they make is simply that TED and Anderson squashed Hanauer's talk on political and ideological grounds. So, where did this idea of Hanauer crying "censorship" come from? Why, from Anderson, of course, who happily mentions it several times in his response. If you're thinking that's a bit odd, you're right - but we'll get back to that in a bit.
As I just mentioned, the point comes back to politics and ideology. During the initial discussions, Anderson claimed that the speech would be too controversial and partisan to run immediately, especially following up Melinda Gates discussing the need to make contraception more available. But if that sort of speech was put forth, then the controversial/partisan argument doesn't really hold up, as the past few months have so clearly shown. In his response, Anderson now claims that quality, not content, is the reason for the exclusion of Hanauer's talk. But if that's the case, why would he post the talks of Jonathan Haidt, who has received criticism of the same vein? To figure this out, it's important to look at where TED comes from.
TED comes from the technocratic libertarian philosophy - the belief that the world can be changed through properly implementing systems, and putting the right people in charge. To such a system, Hanauer's argument - that it is not the wealthy, not the well connected, but the middle class, that powers our society - is anathema. In a very real way, Hanauer was taking the contrarian position to TED itself, a point highlighted by Anderson's May 7th email to Hanauer:
Now, the point that TED is a private organization, and has the right to have its own stances and opinions is true. But at the same time, the public has the right to, upon finding those stances out, argue against them. Thus, the point, and the argument is - what are TED's biases, and do they affect what talks are disseminated?
Further illustrating the point is Anderson's response. I think my description of the piece would be "if you put a tail on it, you'd have yourself a weasel." It's designed to insinuate certain things without outright saying them, as that could open the door to defamation, and to dismiss the legitimate argument leveled at TED without actually addressing it. Below, in the spoiler, is a breakdown of Anderson's response.
We start off with Anderson painting TED as the victim of a story that misled people into attacking them, and the other side as being deceptive and misleading.
Here's the first mentioning of censorship, as well as simplifying the argument to being about a controversial topic, as opposed to TED's own internal biases.
Some more criticism of the outrage generated. While these arguments were leveled by some, Anderson is bringing them to the forefront in order to push the matter of TED's own stances and biases - the actual legitimate argument - to the back.
Whenever someone says this and they're an involved party, expect an attempt to create an "official version" of what happened. This is a red flag.
Here, Anderson depersons Hanauer. This serves a few purposes. One, it's meant to make Hanauer more easily dismissable. Two, it makes it harder to track down information about Hanauer's arguments to compare. There's also the reduction of what Hanauer was talking about to a single word.
Now, we get the "quality" argument, which avoids the assertion by Hanauer and the National Journal that the TED leadership was initially very enthusiastic to placing the speech on TED.com, but slowly backed away. The "partisan head-butting" line also is hard to swallow in light of the fact that TED has published talks on hot button topics such as contraception and global warming (a point that the National Journal made in their story.)
Note the unstated here - namely that "reacting well" means "accepting what decisions are made by TED".
Now we get a nice lie of omission. Yes, Hanauer had hired a PR firm, which would have promoted the talk - as part of supporting the book he just cowrote on the topic and pushing his argument out. By excluding that information, Anderson is painting the false picture of Hanauer using TED alone to push his arguments, and thus trading on its credibility.
With this, Anderson skirts very close to outright defamation. It's quite clear what Anderson is insinuating - that Hanauer was trying to blackmail TED - but he's very careful not to say that outright. Also, with this, we get to see one of the reasons that Anderson brought up censorship, as it is unlikely that saying that Hanauer would go to the press and accuse Anderson of rejecting a talk for political and ideological reasons would have the same impact.
This most likely refers to the May 7th email.
It's important to note what Anderson doesn't say here. He doesn't dispute the authenticity of the emails presented by Hanauer and the National Journal, but instead claims that they are only a "portion" of the dialogue. So we can trust that what was communicated in them was correct.
Here's the other reason why Anderson talks about censorship - to, once again, cover up what is actually being argued - that TED's (and Anderson's) biases and ideology factor into the determination of which talks are publicly disseminated. He's relying on people thinking about accusations made by media figures about how lack of access to the media is equal to censorship.
Again, the point must be made - the National Journal article never mentions censorship. It is an argument forwarded solely by Anderson.
Once again, more sleight of hand to avoid the real issue. Anderson points to Wilkinson's talk as a way to say that "we do address this topic", while avoiding the point that it's not the topic that is the issue, but the manner in which it is addressed. The final line is especially insulting, as that is exactly the problem that is being argued about.
Again, Anderson constrains the criticism against him into a narrow strawman, then attacks it. TED wouldn't have to seek advice from their supporters to know where they lean, and the concern that TED won't rock the boat is at the heart of the argument.
Ah, the "how dare you attack me, someone who is performing a noble task, for how I perform it" argument. If all the other red flags haven't caught your eye yet, this one should. Nobody is above criticism or reproach.
Finally, Anderson solves his strawman problem, letting him play the good guy. Of course, the actual problem continues to be unaddressed, but, the fake problem is gone!
And we're done.
In short, Anderson uses lies of omission and strawmen to avoid dealing with the actual issue brought forth - that TED and its supporters have ideological biases that influence what ideas that they will present, and instead tries to paint Hanauer as a villain who is trying to blackmail TED into letting him use them to promote himself. It's this use of deception that, for me, makes his statement further support the arguments put forth by Hanauer.
Simply put, this whole fiasco is about a simple topic - what do the people who run TED believe, and does it impact their editorial decisions? The fact that Anderson has been unwilling to discuss this matter openly and honestly makes it that much more important to discuss.
http://youtu.be/bBx2Y5HhplIFor those who haven't been following this mess, it started when Nick Hanauer, a Seattle based venture investor, did a talk at TED U about exactly who generates jobs and wealth in society - in short, he's pretty sure that a lot of his success is due to luck, not some special talent, and that it is the middle class that is the engine of the economy and society. The speech seemed like it was well received and Hanauer was told that there was support to put his speech up front as the daily speech. Then, the clouds started rumbling in, as the TED curator, Chris Anderson, said that the speech would be too controversial and "partisan" for TED to cover.
Needless to say, this didn't sit well with Hanauer, who has co-authored a book on the topic and has been making the pundit circuit discussing his point. So, he went to the National Journal, and told them what happened with the speech. Which they promptly published in a story. This, in turn, generated a bit of a firestorm, with Anderson sending out a response and finally putting the speech up.
So, some of you are probably asking "What's the problem, Hedgie?" Well, the problem is that the geek community seems to be too quick to take Anderson's response at face value. I think that this is in large part that it's one of their sacred cows up on the grill this time, so they want to just put this out to pasture. But I don't think that's a good idea. I think Hanauer has raised a very good point, and Anderson's response, frankly, makes me feel that this argument is all the more necessary.
So, the first question is "what is the point?" People have been saying "oh, this is just about some whiny rich guy complaining about being censored because TED won't show his talk." To which I will ask you to do the following - please go read the National Journal article linked above. Then answer this - how many times does it mention the word "censorship" at all? Here's the answer: none. The point they make is simply that TED and Anderson squashed Hanauer's talk on political and ideological grounds. So, where did this idea of Hanauer crying "censorship" come from? Why, from Anderson, of course, who happily mentions it several times in his response. If you're thinking that's a bit odd, you're right - but we'll get back to that in a bit.
As I just mentioned, the point comes back to politics and ideology. During the initial discussions, Anderson claimed that the speech would be too controversial and partisan to run immediately, especially following up Melinda Gates discussing the need to make contraception more available. But if that sort of speech was put forth, then the controversial/partisan argument doesn't really hold up, as the past few months have so clearly shown. In his response, Anderson now claims that quality, not content, is the reason for the exclusion of Hanauer's talk. But if that's the case, why would he post the talks of Jonathan Haidt, who has received criticism of the same vein? To figure this out, it's important to look at where TED comes from.
TED comes from the technocratic libertarian philosophy - the belief that the world can be changed through properly implementing systems, and putting the right people in charge. To such a system, Hanauer's argument - that it is not the wealthy, not the well connected, but the middle class, that powers our society - is anathema. In a very real way, Hanauer was taking the contrarian position to TED itself, a point highlighted by Anderson's May 7th email to Hanauer:
Nick, I hear you.
I've re-listened to the talk but it hasn't changed my mind.
There are some great points you make in it, as well as several statements that a lot of economists could challenge as not true or not literally true. For example:
"Only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle." ...except when a company is thinking ahead of what the market wants; exhibit A: Apple
"An ordinary consumer is more of a job creator than a capitalist." ...really? as an ex entrepreneur who agrees with your overall stance, I don't think that statement is literally true. There are numerous jobs that exist because of the imagination, energy and risk-taking of individual capitalists or entrepreneurs such as you. An typical ordinary consumer might on average contribute to the creation of one job (but probably not more than one, because the numbers don't then add up.)
"hiring more people is a course of last resort, done if and only if rising consumer demand requires it". ...I launched numerous magazines for each of which, at time of their launch, there was zero consumer demand. In each of those cases I hired teams before launching and before knowing whether anyone would buy. Businesses do this all the time. They imagine a product, and take a risk. You might say there must have been latent demand, and that in the short time period you had, you didn't have time to fully flesh out the argument.. sure. But I think a lot of business managers and entrepreneurs would feel insulted by that statement as given.
"If it was true that lower taxes for the rich led to more job creation, today we would be drowning in jobs." ...ignoring the fact that there might be a thousand other contributing causes to the stats you cited to justify that statement.
....and there are several other statements that people could pick holes in, and that probably accounts for why the talk wasn't higher rated by our audience, even though plenty admired the sentiment, and the vulnerability and courage you showed in making it.
I agree with your language about ecosystems, and your dismissal of some of the mechanistic economy orthodoxy, yet many of your own statements seem to go further than those arguments justify
But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out and out political. We're in the middle of an election year in the US. Your argument comes down firmly on the side of one party. And you even reference that at the start of the talk. TED is nonpartisan and is fighting a constant battle with TEDx organizers to respect that principle. (This aspect wasn't helped by the news that David was planning to mobilize Move On to distribute the talk. If it wasn't political before, it certainly would have been then.)
Nick, I personally share your disgust at the growth in inequality in the US, and would love to have found a way to give people a clearer mindset on the issue, without stoking a tedious partisan rehash of all the arguments we hear every day in the mainstream media.
Alas, my judgment - and it is just a judgment, and that's why my job title is 'curator' - is that publishing your talk would not meet that goal.
Sorry again to disappoint, and best wishes,
- Chris
Now, the point that TED is a private organization, and has the right to have its own stances and opinions is true. But at the same time, the public has the right to, upon finding those stances out, argue against them. Thus, the point, and the argument is - what are TED's biases, and do they affect what talks are disseminated?
Further illustrating the point is Anderson's response. I think my description of the piece would be "if you put a tail on it, you'd have yourself a weasel." It's designed to insinuate certain things without outright saying them, as that could open the door to defamation, and to dismiss the legitimate argument leveled at TED without actually addressing it. Below, in the spoiler, is a breakdown of Anderson's response.
Today TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us.
We start off with Anderson painting TED as the victim of a story that misled people into attacking them, and the other side as being deceptive and misleading.
The National Journal alleged we had censored a talk because we considered the issue of inequality "too hot to handle."
Here's the first mentioning of censorship, as well as simplifying the argument to being about a controversial topic, as opposed to TED's own internal biases.
The story ignited a firestorm of outrage on Reddit, Huffington Post and elsewhere. We were accused of being cowards. We were in the pay of our corporate partners. We were the despicable puppets of the Republican party.
Some more criticism of the outrage generated. While these arguments were leveled by some, Anderson is bringing them to the forefront in order to push the matter of TED's own stances and biases - the actual legitimate argument - to the back.
Here's what actually happened.
Whenever someone says this and they're an involved party, expect an attempt to create an "official version" of what happened. This is a red flag.
At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality.
Here, Anderson depersons Hanauer. This serves a few purposes. One, it's meant to make Hanauer more easily dismissable. Two, it makes it harder to track down information about Hanauer's arguments to compare. There's also the reduction of what Hanauer was talking about to a single word.
The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings.
At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media.
Now, we get the "quality" argument, which avoids the assertion by Hanauer and the National Journal that the TED leadership was initially very enthusiastic to placing the speech on TED.com, but slowly backed away. The "partisan head-butting" line also is hard to swallow in light of the fact that TED has published talks on hot button topics such as contraception and global warming (a point that the National Journal made in their story.)
We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well.
Note the unstated here - namely that "reacting well" means "accepting what decisions are made by TED".
He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others,
Now we get a nice lie of omission. Yes, Hanauer had hired a PR firm, which would have promoted the talk - as part of supporting the book he just cowrote on the topic and pushing his argument out. By excluding that information, Anderson is painting the false picture of Hanauer using TED alone to push his arguments, and thus trading on its credibility.
and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him.
With this, Anderson skirts very close to outright defamation. It's quite clear what Anderson is insinuating - that Hanauer was trying to blackmail TED - but he's very careful not to say that outright. Also, with this, we get to see one of the reasons that Anderson brought up censorship, as it is unlikely that saying that Hanauer would go to the press and accuse Anderson of rejecting a talk for political and ideological reasons would have the same impact.
We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed.
This most likely refers to the May 7th email.
So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets.
It's important to note what Anderson doesn't say here. He doesn't dispute the authenticity of the emails presented by Hanauer and the National Journal, but instead claims that they are only a "portion" of the dialogue. So we can trust that what was communicated in them was correct.
And a non-story about a talk not being chosen, because we believed we had better ones, somehow got turned into a scandal about censorship. Which is like saying that if I call the New York Times and they turn down my request to publish an op-ed by me, they're censoring me.
Here's the other reason why Anderson talks about censorship - to, once again, cover up what is actually being argued - that TED's (and Anderson's) biases and ideology factor into the determination of which talks are publicly disseminated. He's relying on people thinking about accusations made by media figures about how lack of access to the media is equal to censorship.
Again, the point must be made - the National Journal article never mentions censorship. It is an argument forwarded solely by Anderson.
For the record, pretty much everyone at TED, including me, worries a great deal about the issue of rising inequality. We've carried talks on it in the past, like this one from Richard Wilkinson. We'd carry more in the future if someone can find a way of framing the issue that is convincing and avoids being needlessly partisan in tone.
Once again, more sleight of hand to avoid the real issue. Anderson points to Wilkinson's talk as a way to say that "we do address this topic", while avoiding the point that it's not the topic that is the issue, but the manner in which it is addressed. The final line is especially insulting, as that is exactly the problem that is being argued about.
Also, for the record, we have never sought advice from any of our advertisers on what we carry editorially. To anyone who knows how TED operates, or who has observed the noncommercial look and feel of the website, the notion that we would is laughable.
Again, Anderson constrains the criticism against him into a narrow strawman, then attacks it. TED wouldn't have to seek advice from their supporters to know where they lean, and the concern that TED won't rock the boat is at the heart of the argument.
We only care about one thing: finding the best speakers and the best ideas we can, and sharing them with the world. For free. I've devoted the rest of my life to doing this, and honestly, it's pretty disheartening to have motives and intentions taken to task so viciously by people who simply don't know the facts.
Ah, the "how dare you attack me, someone who is performing a noble task, for how I perform it" argument. If all the other red flags haven't caught your eye yet, this one should. Nobody is above criticism or reproach.
One takeaway for us is that we're considering at some point posting the full archive from future conferences (somewhere away from the home page). Perhaps this would draw the sting from the accusations of censorship. Here, for starters, is the talk concerned. You can judge for yourself...
No doubt it will now, ironically, get stupendous viewing numbers and spark a magnificent debate, and then the conspiracy theorists will say the whole thing was a set-up!
Finally, Anderson solves his strawman problem, letting him play the good guy. Of course, the actual problem continues to be unaddressed, but, the fake problem is gone!
OK... thanks for listening. Over and out.
And we're done.
In short, Anderson uses lies of omission and strawmen to avoid dealing with the actual issue brought forth - that TED and its supporters have ideological biases that influence what ideas that they will present, and instead tries to paint Hanauer as a villain who is trying to blackmail TED into letting him use them to promote himself. It's this use of deception that, for me, makes his statement further support the arguments put forth by Hanauer.
Simply put, this whole fiasco is about a simple topic - what do the people who run TED believe, and does it impact their editorial decisions? The fact that Anderson has been unwilling to discuss this matter openly and honestly makes it that much more important to discuss.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
0
Posts
TED didn't want to give the talk top billing because they were afraid it'd create a hassle for them, which is kind of cowardly I guess but not something that I find to be a big deal. I mean, if they wanted to 'censor' him or whatever they'd never have published the talk at all, right?
also, he is trying to blackmail TED. Arguably it's justified, but still
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It is a notion so endemic to American culture that it even used to complement our early religious ideals. The readiest example is in the Calvinistic notion of "the elect" and this idea that if you were going to Heaven, you would obviously have been blessed on Earth, and the easiest way to tell that was if you were wealthy.
Despite how antiquated this idea is, we're still not ready to talk about it maturely and responsibly. We're certainly not allowed to describe it as such a fundamental fallacy, as a sort of fake idea about what powers our economy. And never is that more evident than in Anderson's ongoing campaign to quash or disclaim the content of a speech saying as much.
the audience is extremely liberal (see the hands up demonstration here: http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html), and they get a lot of speakers delivering talks that are quite definitely not libertarian by any stretch of the imagination (the obvious parallel here is the richard wilkinson one)
its entirely possible that anderson got mildly butthurt because he disagreed and sneakily tried to veto it, then backed out when it got embarassing with an obfuscating excuse
TED has gained a lot of credibility in academic, government and liberal circles. It's seen as a nonpartisan outlet for, as the billing goes, today's top thinkers to air their messages. It's whole public face is a unbiased venue for people with strong ideas to make their case.
If TED turns out to have a viewpoint and agenda, then a lot of the people who use and forward TED talks would stop doing so. It's like the Komen controversy - people don't like feeling like saps for supporting an organization that wasn't what it portrayed itself to be.
Because I see very often TED (1) worshipping intelligent people, but also (2) pushing fairly liberal/populist viewpoints. Is the argument supposed to go that TED wants to quash liberal, labor-focused viewpoints? That notion doesn't mesh particularly well with the talks I've seen. Rather, the only real bias I've personally noticed in TED is an extremely strong technocratic stance. I'd worry much more about censorship of technological cynicism.
Either way, though, it's these sorts of tactics that typically make the subject of the speech difficult to talk about substantively. I mean, if we can't even get past the basic hurdle of getting that information responsibly disseminated, then how are we even supposed to advance to the point of being able to discuss the subject as a society?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
TED has featured many speakers who are fundamentally against the very notion of capitalism; Hanauer's statements in that video are not really ground-shaking at all in comparison to other statements.
I imagine that the issue TED had was that Hanauer flat-out pointed his finger at one of the two political parties in the country. I mean, I agree with him and I think that current discourse needs more of that, but it is partisan, and TED's rules for etiquette forbid outright partisanship (...though, honestly, that's a bit of bullshit. They invited Rick Warren to speak on multiple occasions, and he was happy to violate the partisanship rules).
Which really says more about what the TED zeitgeist considers Respectable, but that is something that civil discussion can resolve quite satisfactorily.
Well yeah. The thing is that these sorts of incidents DEFINE TED's political stances, not some mission statement or self-authored wiki entry.
It's because it's a shot across the bow - Hanauer is basically saying "there is no such thing as John Galt, get over yourselves."
Can TED presenters and speakers not criticize specific policy initiatives if the initiative is not bi-partisan?
Right, TED seems overwhelmingly liberal if anything. Certainly your average TED viewer is voting for Obama. This is the Google crowd, or at least this is how it has always come off to me.
I think it's very likely not that TED is pushing a libertarian agenda, but more that they honestly are afraid of being seen as biased. I'd think it's more likely to be a cowardly act on TED's part more than a malicious one.
Wilkinson is actually a good example of the problem. He's a "safe" way for TED to address the issue of income inequality, as he "frames" the discussion properly (i.e. he doesn't exactly challenge why income inequality exists.)
Hanauer isn't as safe.
I just don't see this message conflicting with much of what I've seen on TED. There are huge swaths of TED talks that are all about participant culture and the decentralization of power and content production in the digital age. The only thing that seems to conflict with what I've seen a lot of in TED talks is the large amount of hero worship, but the TED hero worship is usually not at the expense of liberal ideology.
Right, but this really points back to the primary question which is: Was TED doing it out of cowardice and an attempt to retain the appearance of non-partisanship or were they doing it to push a conflicting agenda?
If TED was very willing to allow the "safe" address of income inequality rather than censoring discussion of income inequality outright, it seems a lot more plausible that they are more afraid of pushing the envelope than they are actively trying to push it in the other direction.
He mentions the Republican party in, what, the first 30 seconds of his talk?
That's partisan.
If he were to do exactly the same talk without immediately associating Republicans with his thesis, it would be politically neutral (Note: I don't actually think that partisanship is a bad thing, here, and I totally agree with you that it's not the speaker's fault that the GOP has decided to attach itself to bad ideas).
Which is more probative of TED's politics as an organization? This lone incident, or their ongoing commitment to making available 900+ previous talks, some of which have already addressed this exact subject?
Except if you're going to play it safe politically, you're not going to let Melinda Gates talk about why access to contraception is important. Or let James Hansen take an aggressive stance on climate change.
That's why arguing that this is just a matter of political cowardice falls flat.
The talk fucked with the money. It questioned the money. It didn't dilly dally around the question of income inequality and suggest solutions like "The poor should start community gardens." The fact that this is the red line that TED will not cross says a lot more about the organization than any talk supporting aid to Africa or contraception.
It suggests that TED isn't nonpartisan, but instead a West Coast libertarian think tank - socially liberal and willing to question every assumption except the ideas that maybe rich people aren't the center of the economic universe and solutions sometimes must come from government action. While there's nothing wrong with this, per se, TED hasn't put this out front and center, and they really don't want their primarily liberal audience getting the idea that this is what they are all about.
Do either of those talks aggressively target the Republican party by name? (this is an honest question, I've yet to watch both of those talks)
The problem is, we don't know if this is a lone incident. Which is why this discussion is so important to have.
And again, the "ongoing commitment" argument is a despicable one. It's the same argument that Komen used for years to silence their critics.
I agree with almost everything he said, but it's a pretty political speech, and isn't really giving any special spin or freshness to those ideas. It's all pretty econ 201. And not even a particularly well-presented 201, I mean all those slides that flash by too fast to really make sense of them to support his positions? Meh.
Like TED wrote initially, they draw on hundreds of speeches a year for the ones to publish, them initially choosing not to release this one isn't censorship anymore than a paper declining your offer to write an editorial for them. Especially since the speaker had already hired a PR firm and was planning to coordinate with MoveOn to publicize the clip, it's all a bit much. TED would be a lot less respectable to me if they gave into a speaker's blackmail demands than declining to publish a speech they consider too political
Does Melinda Gates specifically say, "The Republican party / Democratic party is responsible for a lack of access to contraception." ?
I doubt it.
Politically, I also think we're at a tipping point where the "serious people" are starting to agree that it is acceptable to question the Republican Party in mainstream discourse. The TED folks may just end up a couple months on the wrong side of the national dialogue.
This book, coauthored by a fellow at the American Enterprise, has been the talk of Washington lately. Beyond the fact that it is saying things you could have read on the liberal blogs for years, it is a signal that even the conservative money men are getting antsy about the antics of the GOP and are willing to let their paid operatives talk about it.
Sadly, this is what it has took to break the silence from a lot of quarters on the direction of the Republicans. But there's a real "Nixon Goes to China" moment when the AEI is supporting a book pointing the finger directly and unequivocally at the Republicans for causing dysfunction in our government.
Thank you for being a perfect example of the problem I was discussing in the OP.
Are we really this desperate to manufacture controversy over this that we have to invent make-believe acts of prior censure, and then compare TED to a completely unrelated, and much more politicized group?
It's so, so reaching.
Right, I think TED is going to want to be using a much more high-profile speaker if they want to kick the hornet's nest.
I won't argue that their actions here weren't entirely politically motivated, but at the same time I just need a lot more evidence to believe that TED is actively pushing a libertarian agenda, when up until now everything has pointed to them having a liberal bent. Do you honestly think that they've got some sort of conspiracy to insidiously turn their liberal audience over to a libertarian cause? What's more likely is that they've become more aware of the fact that their audience is overwhelmingly liberal and they're starting to become self-conscious about it. They don't want to have Republican news sources denigrating them by pointing to examples of what can at least be construed as clear propaganda, especially when everyone is so sore over OWS still.
We do know that TED has published speeches about income inequality before.
We don't have any evidence to believe that this is anything more than an individual incident, or that TED didn't make their decision for exactly the reason they claimed.
You're making an affirmative conclusion from a negative premiss.
Can you at least produce any well-publicized talks that are directly against liberal positions on labor or social and wealth inequality?
You don't need censorship to question the TED model. TED talks are held across the nation, with the "breakout" talks being invited to be repeated on the main stage, with obvious exceptions being made for CEOs and celebrities. I think I saw someone that only something like 1 percent of the TED talks held nationally make it to the main website.
So, you don't need to talk about censorship. You simply talk about selection bias.
what, exactly, is the problem? it seems like you are asking whether TED's personal inclinations towards ideology informs their selection of hosted videos.
i think the answer would probably be yes- i doubt they'd allow on a guy preaching about how terrible miscegeny is for the national character.
West Coast libertarianism tends to be highly socially liberal - pro-arts, pro-environment and pro-diversity. But it differs on key economic issues from liberalism, especially when it comes to questions of wealth and government. It's one of those cases where liberals and WC libertarians can talk for a long time before they realize that they have major conflicts in their core values.
Yeah, but I still don't see, outside of this particular incident, where you can point to the actions that TED has taken that establish it as libertarian instead of liberal. What famous talks have they pushed in the past that have a clear libertarian bias?
So, you really haven't read the OP, have you?
The fact that they have published other talks about income inequality is a red herring, as that's not the issue. The issue is if TED quashes speeches that are too threatening to the underlying beliefs of TED and its supporters, whatever the topic might be.
The National Journal published excerpts of email communications regarding Hanauer's speech by the TED leadership, who seemed initially enthusiastic about presenting his speech. Anderson's response did not attempt to claim that the emails were fake (in fact, it pretty much confirms that they are authentic.)
What I'm saying is that there's a legitimate question about how TED selects which talks are put forth. Anderson's response, which is engineered to be quite deceptive, doesn't help the case that there isn't.
You could ask the same question about Komen. This is a public perception crisis, and TED may be more innocent than not, but public trust in institutions is low and incidents like the Komen fiasco have made liberals especially sensitive to the possibility that the institutions they trust are actually working against them.
TED should have run the talk. The fact that they didn't leaves them open to questions like "Why?" The fact that they've given contradictory answers in multiple venues are what are making those questions more pointed.
Clearly the bias, if it exists, is non-obvious in magnitude.
In of itself, no. But if it used that bias while asserting that it didn't, then yes, it would. Think of Fox News' "Fair And Balanced" slogan.
So we're not allowed to establish patterns from their previous behavior, but we are allowed to establish patterns from one incident? That ain't logic, mate. I mean if TED had really wanted to censor the guy you'd think they just wouldn't have invited him in the first place. And that they wouldn't have had other speakers address the same topic that he's addressing.