Well, okay, say for the sake of the point that TED does select its highlighted talks with a "West Coast libertarian" bias. Does that discredit any of said talks? For the purpose to which TED proclaims is its mission?
Clearly the bias, if it exists, is non-obvious in magnitude.
The talks themselves? No. But it does weaken TED's credibility, and as a result who it will be able to attract to speak.
Well, okay, say for the sake of the point that TED does select its highlighted talks with a "West Coast libertarian" bias. Does that discredit any of said talks? For the purpose to which TED proclaims is its mission?
Clearly the bias, if it exists, is non-obvious in magnitude.
If it is true and the majority of their audience does not know this, then yes. If you are representing a particular viewpoint and your audience is made up of people who may or may not agree with that viewpoint, you really can't complain much if you get hit with a crisis of confidence because you didn't practice full disclosure and got caught out.
Say that alternate universe TED has an overtly right-wing-technologist bias. Would this illegitimize its talks?
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.
I agree that while TED has a right to have any sort of political bias, it is hopeful that they would be open about it, or at the very least obvious about it (Fox isn't fooling anyone these days).
I still, however, have yet to see sufficient evidence that TED isn't just fooling themselves as much as they are trying to fool anyone else. It is just as likely that TED wants to believe it is being non-partisan so it is acting against its own liberal interests to appear that way. I just think that we really don't have any proof at all that TED is pushing anything like a libertarian agenda, and even if there are legitimate reasons to watch their biases (this is something we should do with all media we consume, no matter where it comes from and even if we are watching out for our own biases), there just isn't enough support for a witch hunt here.
Well, okay, say for the sake of the point that TED does select its highlighted talks with a "West Coast libertarian" bias. Does that discredit any of said talks? For the purpose to which TED proclaims is its mission?
Clearly the bias, if it exists, is non-obvious in magnitude.
If it is true and the majority of their audience does not know this, then yes. If you are representing a particular viewpoint and your audience is made up of people who may or may not agree with that viewpoint, you really can't complain much if you get hit with a crisis of confidence because you didn't practice full disclosure and got caught out.
The audience should be critically analyzing ANY speaker, whether it's a dude at TED or a dude behind a presidential podium. I mean shoot, catholic colleges invited Christopher Hitchens to speak all over the place, that doesn't mean they were agreeing with his message. It has nothing to do with 'misrepresenting' a speaker's viewpoint.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Well, okay, say for the sake of the point that TED does select its highlighted talks with a "West Coast libertarian" bias. Does that discredit any of said talks? For the purpose to which TED proclaims is its mission?
Clearly the bias, if it exists, is non-obvious in magnitude.
If it is true and the majority of their audience does not know this, then yes. If you are representing a particular viewpoint and your audience is made up of people who may or may not agree with that viewpoint, you really can't complain much if you get hit with a crisis of confidence because you didn't practice full disclosure and got caught out.
The audience should be critically analyzing ANY speaker, whether it's a dude at TED or a dude behind a presidential podium. I mean shoot, catholic colleges invited Christopher Hitchens to speak all over the place, that doesn't mean they were agreeing with his message. It has nothing to do with 'misrepresenting' a speaker's viewpoint.
We're not talking about a "speaker". We're talking about an entire organization. There's a big difference there.
Say that alternate universe TED has an overtly right-wing-technologist bias. Would this illegitimize its talks?
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.
Does TED claim to be ideologically neutral (which is not the same as non-partisan) anyway?
Yes, they do. Anderson made such an assertion in his response as an attempt to shame his critics.
Where does he say this?
We only care about one thing: finding the best speakers and the best ideas we can, and sharing them with the world. For free.
Arguably the definition of "best" is going to be relying on ideology.
Which is why it's important to know where TED stands. But it's pretty clear, in the context of Anderson's statement, that he's saying it to say that they want the best ideas regardless of source.
Say that alternate universe TED has an overtly right-wing-technologist bias. Would this illegitimize its talks?
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.
Does TED claim to be ideologically neutral (which is not the same as non-partisan) anyway?
Yes, they do. Anderson made such an assertion in his response as an attempt to shame his critics.
Where does he say this?
We only care about one thing: finding the best speakers and the best ideas we can, and sharing them with the world. For free.
Arguably the definition of "best" is going to be relying on ideology.
Which is why it's important to know where TED stands. But it's pretty clear, in the context of Anderson's statement, that he's saying it to say that they want the best ideas regardless of source.
I'm going to admit I am sounding like a total broken record here, but outside of the already presented controversy, do we have anything else to look at in determining the political bias of TED?
Say that alternate universe TED has an overtly right-wing-technologist bias. Would this illegitimize its talks?
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.
Does TED claim to be ideologically neutral (which is not the same as non-partisan) anyway?
Yes, they do. Anderson made such an assertion in his response as an attempt to shame his critics.
Where does he say this?
We only care about one thing: finding the best speakers and the best ideas we can, and sharing them with the world. For free.
Arguably the definition of "best" is going to be relying on ideology.
Which is why it's important to know where TED stands. But it's pretty clear, in the context of Anderson's statement, that he's saying it to say that they want the best ideas regardless of source.
I'm going to admit I am sounding like a total broken record here, but outside of the already presented controversy, do we have anything else to look at in determining the political bias of TED?
I think that question is why this is in the news right now. Before, no one had a reason to question what TED was about. It was seen as a neutral platform for talks. Now, we're starting to ask those questions about its larger agenda, including "Does it have a larger agenda?"
Say that alternate universe TED has an overtly right-wing-technologist bias. Would this illegitimize its talks?
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.
Does TED claim to be ideologically neutral (which is not the same as non-partisan) anyway?
Yes, they do. Anderson made such an assertion in his response as an attempt to shame his critics.
Where does he say this?
We only care about one thing: finding the best speakers and the best ideas we can, and sharing them with the world. For free.
Arguably the definition of "best" is going to be relying on ideology.
Which is why it's important to know where TED stands. But it's pretty clear, in the context of Anderson's statement, that he's saying it to say that they want the best ideas regardless of source.
I'm going to admit I am sounding like a total broken record here, but outside of the already presented controversy, do we have anything else to look at in determining the political bias of TED?
I think that question is why this is in the news right now. Before, no one had a reason to question what TED was about. Now, we're starting to ask those questions.
So, all we really have to go with is the question:
"Is TED secretly pushing a libertarian agenda?"
Which, if you'll allow me some hyperbole, sounds an awful lot like:
"Was Obama secretly born a Kenyan Muslim?"
I mean, we don't have any real evidence to go off of.
Say that alternate universe TED has an overtly right-wing-technologist bias. Would this illegitimize its talks?
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.
Does TED claim to be ideologically neutral (which is not the same as non-partisan) anyway?
Yes, they do. Anderson made such an assertion in his response as an attempt to shame his critics.
Where does he say this?
We only care about one thing: finding the best speakers and the best ideas we can, and sharing them with the world. For free.
Arguably the definition of "best" is going to be relying on ideology.
Which is why it's important to know where TED stands. But it's pretty clear, in the context of Anderson's statement, that he's saying it to say that they want the best ideas regardless of source.
I'm going to admit I am sounding like a total broken record here, but outside of the already presented controversy, do we have anything else to look at in determining the political bias of TED?
I think that question is why this is in the news right now. Before, no one had a reason to question what TED was about. Now, we're starting to ask those questions.
So, all we really have to go with is the question:
"Is TED secretly pushing a libertarian agenda?"
Which, if you'll allow me some hyperbole, sounds an awful lot like:
"Was Obama secretly born a Kenyan Muslim?"
I mean, we don't have any real evidence to go off of.
Say that alternate universe TED has an overtly right-wing-technologist bias. Would this illegitimize its talks?
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.
Does TED claim to be ideologically neutral (which is not the same as non-partisan) anyway?
Yes, they do. Anderson made such an assertion in his response as an attempt to shame his critics.
Where does he say this?
We only care about one thing: finding the best speakers and the best ideas we can, and sharing them with the world. For free.
Arguably the definition of "best" is going to be relying on ideology.
Which is why it's important to know where TED stands. But it's pretty clear, in the context of Anderson's statement, that he's saying it to say that they want the best ideas regardless of source.
I'm going to admit I am sounding like a total broken record here, but outside of the already presented controversy, do we have anything else to look at in determining the political bias of TED?
I think that question is why this is in the news right now. Before, no one had a reason to question what TED was about. Now, we're starting to ask those questions.
So, all we really have to go with is the question:
"Is TED secretly pushing a libertarian agenda?"
Which, if you'll allow me some hyperbole, sounds an awful lot like:
"Was Obama secretly born a Kenyan Muslim?"
I mean, we don't have any real evidence to go off of.
But the question is there!
No, it doesn't. You're acting as if Hanauer didn't actually back up his assertions, when in fact he did, and Anderson conceded the validity of his evidence.
Say that alternate universe TED has an overtly right-wing-technologist bias. Would this illegitimize its talks?
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.
Does TED claim to be ideologically neutral (which is not the same as non-partisan) anyway?
Yes, they do. Anderson made such an assertion in his response as an attempt to shame his critics.
Where does he say this?
We only care about one thing: finding the best speakers and the best ideas we can, and sharing them with the world. For free.
Arguably the definition of "best" is going to be relying on ideology.
Which is why it's important to know where TED stands. But it's pretty clear, in the context of Anderson's statement, that he's saying it to say that they want the best ideas regardless of source.
I'm going to admit I am sounding like a total broken record here, but outside of the already presented controversy, do we have anything else to look at in determining the political bias of TED?
I think that question is why this is in the news right now. Before, no one had a reason to question what TED was about. Now, we're starting to ask those questions.
So, all we really have to go with is the question:
"Is TED secretly pushing a libertarian agenda?"
Which, if you'll allow me some hyperbole, sounds an awful lot like:
"Was Obama secretly born a Kenyan Muslim?"
I mean, we don't have any real evidence to go off of.
But the question is there!
Or, "Was Komen pushing a right wing agenda?"
Answer - "Yes, yet it was."
Granted.
Though, I'm still of the mind "liberal until proven guilty".
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Um, if TED "pushes an agenda" who cares? Can't they do whatever they want? I mean, it sucks that the thing you like did something you don't agree with, but that's really not a fiasco or a threat to the nation, is it?
Um, if TED "pushes an agenda" who cares? Can't they do whatever they want? I mean, it sucks that the thing you like did something you don't agree with, but that's really not a fiasco or a threat to the nation, is it?
TED's audience cares. That's the point of this discussion.
Um, if TED "pushes an agenda" who cares? Can't they do whatever they want? I mean, it sucks that the thing you like did something you don't agree with, but that's really not a fiasco or a threat to the nation, is it?
Yeah, they have that right completely.
And the rest of us have the right to tell them to go fuck off because we don't agree with that agenda, and that they tried to hide it.
A lot of TED's credibility comes in part because they are "good ideas", regardless of source. If it came out they have an agenda under that, TED would lose a lot of credibility and support.
Again, it's the same dynamic that happened with Komen.
Um, if TED "pushes an agenda" who cares? Can't they do whatever they want? I mean, it sucks that the thing you like did something you don't agree with, but that's really not a fiasco or a threat to the nation, is it?
I don't really care about TED in particular (though the rank dishonesty of Anderson's response annoys the hell out of me), but it reflects a very disturbing trend in society where the quality of arguments are judged on their politeness.
Brian Krakow on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Um, if TED "pushes an agenda" who cares? Can't they do whatever they want? I mean, it sucks that the thing you like did something you don't agree with, but that's really not a fiasco or a threat to the nation, is it?
TED's audience cares. That's the point of this discussion.
No I get that, and who cares was probably a poor choice of words, but, it's hardly a fiasco though. It's a damn shame but it's not really a thing to the outside world. This strikes me as people who are Google or Apple fans being upset when those companies do something shady.
I realize this sounds a little reductive and that's not really what I'm trying to come off as, so I apologize for that.
Um, if TED "pushes an agenda" who cares? Can't they do whatever they want? I mean, it sucks that the thing you like did something you don't agree with, but that's really not a fiasco or a threat to the nation, is it?
TED's audience cares. That's the point of this discussion.
The TED audience can go elsewhere. Like Komen's audience has in many places.
TED's actual audience are the people spending the 6000 a head to go to the conference. The free TED talks online are to justify that cost - because look at how popular they are!
Um, if TED "pushes an agenda" who cares? Can't they do whatever they want? I mean, it sucks that the thing you like did something you don't agree with, but that's really not a fiasco or a threat to the nation, is it?
TED's audience cares. That's the point of this discussion.
No I get that, and who cares was probably a poor choice of words, but, it's hardly a fiasco though. It's a damn shame but it's not really a thing to the outside world. This strikes me as people who are Google or Apple fans being upset when those companies do something shady.
I realize this sounds a little reductive and that's not really what I'm trying to come off as, so I apologize for that.
While I recognize this isn't the case everywhere, I work in a world where TED talks are passed around freely, form the basis of discussions about policy and goals and are seen as the gold standard for presenting interesting ideas for the public. Academia, business and government agencies send out TED links to back up their ideas all the time. It's a major part of the organization's popularity - they are seen as a credible source of information not tied to any particular agenda.
If TED turns out to be just another partisan think tank with a good cover story, a lot of people are going to be pissed. They're in the position where they feel betrayed, because they trusted TED and tied their own work to the organization.
Phillishere on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Um, if TED "pushes an agenda" who cares? Can't they do whatever they want? I mean, it sucks that the thing you like did something you don't agree with, but that's really not a fiasco or a threat to the nation, is it?
TED's audience cares. That's the point of this discussion.
No I get that, and who cares was probably a poor choice of words, but, it's hardly a fiasco though. It's a damn shame but it's not really a thing to the outside world. This strikes me as people who are Google or Apple fans being upset when those companies do something shady.
I realize this sounds a little reductive and that's not really what I'm trying to come off as, so I apologize for that.
While I recognize this isn't the case everywhere, I work in a world where TED talks are passed around freely, form the basis of discussions about policy and goals and are seen as the gold standard for presenting interesting ideas for the public. Academia, business and government agencies sent out TED links to back up their ideas all the time. It's a major part of the organization's popularity - they are seen as a credible source of information not tied to any particular agenda.
If TED turns out to be just another partisan think tank with a good cover story, a lot of people are going to be pissed. They're in the position where they feel betrayed, because they trusted TED and tied their own work to the organization.
Um, if TED "pushes an agenda" who cares? Can't they do whatever they want? I mean, it sucks that the thing you like did something you don't agree with, but that's really not a fiasco or a threat to the nation, is it?
TED's audience cares. That's the point of this discussion.
The TED audience can go elsewhere. Like Komen's audience has in many places.
TED's actual audience are the people spending the 6000 a head to go to the conference. The free TED talks online are to justify that cost - because look at how popular they are!
Exactly. TED's built a reputation as a credible center of ideas without bias or agenda - which is why I have been at many a presentation opened by a clip from a TED talk. If they lose the reputation, they lose the mass audience and kill the buzz, which will make the big sticker ticket sales dry up.
I guess I see TED differently. I've seen it used the same way, but TED itself is never considered "the source"; the person giving the talk is. That's the whole point of TED really: give somebody smart a platform to explore an idea in detail.
Even if you believe that TED has an ideological agenda based on this incident, it requires several sequential and ridiculous leaps of logic to infer that there's some conspiracy that devalues the material of all its other speakers.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I guess I see TED differently. I've seen it used the same way, but TED itself is never considered "the source"; the person giving the talk is. That's the whole point of TED really: give somebody smart a platform to explore an idea in detail.
Even if you believe that TED has an ideological agenda based on this incident, it requires several sequential and ridiculous leaps of logic to infer that there's some conspiracy that devalues the material of all its other speakers.
You could say the same thing about Komen, though. They were still raising money for breast cancer, after all.
Most people do not know the background of all the TED speakers. The assumption is that, if TED puts them on, they are credible and worth listening to. A lot of the assumptions about the quality of the person giving the ideas are based on the fundamental trust TED has built with its audience.
There's no such thing as neutral. Neutral means 'Similar enough to me that I can accept the small differences'.
For example, I am left wing, but TED allowing right-wing speakers is OK because at least they are displaying open-mindedness and support for free speech, which are some of my core values.
I mean, in the case of Fox News, we mistrust their content because there is a documented history of them presenting events in a misleading or outright false way. They're editorializing when they've claimed (implicitly at least) that they don't.
TED's different; all TED does is editorialize. Maybe we'd like them to open their forum to a wider variety of speakers, but that doesn't somehow impugn the value of the speakers they do feature.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I mean, in the case of Fox News, we mistrust their content because there is a documented history of them presenting events in a misleading or outright false way. They're editorializing when they've claimed (implicitly at least) that they don't.
TED's different; all TED does is editorialize. Maybe we'd like them to open their forum to a wider variety of speakers, but that doesn't somehow impugn the value of the speakers they do feature.
TED's value is in it being an unbiased gatekeeper between those speakers and its audience. That's TED's core value. After all, it's not like those speakers couldn't just hire a camera crew and put up their own talk on Youtube. If TED has an unstated agenda in what speakers it chooses, it loses that credibility.
Fundamentally, it's not really about what TED's politics are. It's about the fact that it has built a brand as a nonpolitical arbiter of "Ideas Worth Talking About" - not "Techno-Libertarian Ideas Worth Talking About."
Or would you like TED to allow some intelligent design bible-belt homophobe and an Iranian theocrat to give a tag-team speech on why Gay People Will Destroy Us All?
Or would you like TED to allow some intelligent design bible-belt homophobe and an Iranian theocrat to give a tag-team speech on why Gay People Will Destroy Us All?
I should be more bluntly honest. The TED brand, in its most used practical application, is seen as a safe place for professionals to communicate ideas.
In circles where it ranges from impolite to outright forbidden to transmit political messages - no videos from the American Enterprise Institute, Democratic/Republican Party or Occupy Wall Street - it is safe to send a TED talk. In circles where even a link from NPR would raise an eyebrow, no one would think twice about linking to a TED talk.
And I freely admit that there are a ton of problematic assumptions in this, but that's the niche TED has carved out in the professional world. Even with just this whiff of scandal, I imagine that a lot of the people who forwarded TED talks will think twice in the future.
Notably, the same was true for Komen. Komen's biggest supporters were corporations looking for politically "safe" causes to promote in the workplace. Like the United Way, Red Cross and a ton of other favorites of the professional world, TED has built up a niche in the professional world dedicated to the impossible dream of "keeping politics out of the workplace."
Or would you like TED to allow some intelligent design bible-belt homophobe and an Iranian theocrat to give a tag-team speech on why Gay People Will Destroy Us All?
TED process for selection is not fully transparent. So people can put whatever they want into the black box on both sides - selectors' biases are hidden so whatever the observers interpret that bias to be from the talks they choose to show. And when people expose part of it, it is generally the part that looks bad, because the good part is boring and not newsworthy.
3DS Friends: 1693-1781-7023
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't think that the agenda or politics of a purveyor should affect the content of the speakers. The TED talks are selling ideas, if you like the ideas that should be good enough, especially for something like TED where there is no real editorial oversight going on.
Though anyone who would look down their nose at a NPR article rather misses the point of NPR (though I can understand how that might happen).
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.
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.
First off, you might want to stop using "censorship". That's Anderson's assertion, it's not backed up by the National Journal article, and Anderson has less than noble reasons for using the term.
And, in fact, it's by comparing Hanauer's speech to other TED-approved speeches on the same subject that the issue become apparent. Philishere already made the point earlier:
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.
That is logic, and it's logic that doesn't favor Anderson, as he made it quite clear in his response that TED would only sign off on speeches if they are "framed" properly. That's a statement that should bother you.
That is logic, and it's logic that doesn't favor Anderson, as he made it quite clear in his response that TED would only sign off on speeches if they are "framed" properly. That's a statement that should bother you.
it doesn't bother me that TED wouldn't present a talk where the speaker's views on, say, inner city crime, are framed in an incredibly racist way
Posts
Does TED claim to be ideologically neutral (which is not the same as non-partisan) anyway?
The talks themselves? No. But it does weaken TED's credibility, and as a result who it will be able to attract to speak.
If it is true and the majority of their audience does not know this, then yes. If you are representing a particular viewpoint and your audience is made up of people who may or may not agree with that viewpoint, you really can't complain much if you get hit with a crisis of confidence because you didn't practice full disclosure and got caught out.
Yes, they do. Anderson made such an assertion in his response as an attempt to shame his critics.
I agree that while TED has a right to have any sort of political bias, it is hopeful that they would be open about it, or at the very least obvious about it (Fox isn't fooling anyone these days).
I still, however, have yet to see sufficient evidence that TED isn't just fooling themselves as much as they are trying to fool anyone else. It is just as likely that TED wants to believe it is being non-partisan so it is acting against its own liberal interests to appear that way. I just think that we really don't have any proof at all that TED is pushing anything like a libertarian agenda, and even if there are legitimate reasons to watch their biases (this is something we should do with all media we consume, no matter where it comes from and even if we are watching out for our own biases), there just isn't enough support for a witch hunt here.
The audience should be critically analyzing ANY speaker, whether it's a dude at TED or a dude behind a presidential podium. I mean shoot, catholic colleges invited Christopher Hitchens to speak all over the place, that doesn't mean they were agreeing with his message. It has nothing to do with 'misrepresenting' a speaker's viewpoint.
Where does he say this?
We're not talking about a "speaker". We're talking about an entire organization. There's a big difference there.
Arguably the definition of "best" is going to be relying on ideology.
Which is why it's important to know where TED stands. But it's pretty clear, in the context of Anderson's statement, that he's saying it to say that they want the best ideas regardless of source.
I'm going to admit I am sounding like a total broken record here, but outside of the already presented controversy, do we have anything else to look at in determining the political bias of TED?
I think that question is why this is in the news right now. Before, no one had a reason to question what TED was about. It was seen as a neutral platform for talks. Now, we're starting to ask those questions about its larger agenda, including "Does it have a larger agenda?"
So, all we really have to go with is the question:
"Is TED secretly pushing a libertarian agenda?"
Which, if you'll allow me some hyperbole, sounds an awful lot like:
"Was Obama secretly born a Kenyan Muslim?"
I mean, we don't have any real evidence to go off of.
But the question is there!
Or, "Was Komen pushing a right wing agenda?"
Answer - "Yes, yet it was."
No, it doesn't. You're acting as if Hanauer didn't actually back up his assertions, when in fact he did, and Anderson conceded the validity of his evidence.
Granted.
Though, I'm still of the mind "liberal until proven guilty".
TED's audience cares. That's the point of this discussion.
so what exactly are we talking about?
this question being forebodingly posed is whether they're letting their 'worldviews' guide their selection criteria. of course they are.
can we narrow the bounds a little bit so this is even a sensible conversation?
Yeah, they have that right completely.
And the rest of us have the right to tell them to go fuck off because we don't agree with that agenda, and that they tried to hide it.
A lot of TED's credibility comes in part because they are "good ideas", regardless of source. If it came out they have an agenda under that, TED would lose a lot of credibility and support.
Again, it's the same dynamic that happened with Komen.
I don't really care about TED in particular (though the rank dishonesty of Anderson's response annoys the hell out of me), but it reflects a very disturbing trend in society where the quality of arguments are judged on their politeness.
No I get that, and who cares was probably a poor choice of words, but, it's hardly a fiasco though. It's a damn shame but it's not really a thing to the outside world. This strikes me as people who are Google or Apple fans being upset when those companies do something shady.
I realize this sounds a little reductive and that's not really what I'm trying to come off as, so I apologize for that.
The TED audience can go elsewhere. Like Komen's audience has in many places.
TED's actual audience are the people spending the 6000 a head to go to the conference. The free TED talks online are to justify that cost - because look at how popular they are!
While I recognize this isn't the case everywhere, I work in a world where TED talks are passed around freely, form the basis of discussions about policy and goals and are seen as the gold standard for presenting interesting ideas for the public. Academia, business and government agencies send out TED links to back up their ideas all the time. It's a major part of the organization's popularity - they are seen as a credible source of information not tied to any particular agenda.
If TED turns out to be just another partisan think tank with a good cover story, a lot of people are going to be pissed. They're in the position where they feel betrayed, because they trusted TED and tied their own work to the organization.
That makes sense. Thank you.
Exactly. TED's built a reputation as a credible center of ideas without bias or agenda - which is why I have been at many a presentation opened by a clip from a TED talk. If they lose the reputation, they lose the mass audience and kill the buzz, which will make the big sticker ticket sales dry up.
Even if you believe that TED has an ideological agenda based on this incident, it requires several sequential and ridiculous leaps of logic to infer that there's some conspiracy that devalues the material of all its other speakers.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
You could say the same thing about Komen, though. They were still raising money for breast cancer, after all.
Most people do not know the background of all the TED speakers. The assumption is that, if TED puts them on, they are credible and worth listening to. A lot of the assumptions about the quality of the person giving the ideas are based on the fundamental trust TED has built with its audience.
There's no such thing as neutral. Neutral means 'Similar enough to me that I can accept the small differences'.
For example, I am left wing, but TED allowing right-wing speakers is OK because at least they are displaying open-mindedness and support for free speech, which are some of my core values.
TED's different; all TED does is editorialize. Maybe we'd like them to open their forum to a wider variety of speakers, but that doesn't somehow impugn the value of the speakers they do feature.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
TED's value is in it being an unbiased gatekeeper between those speakers and its audience. That's TED's core value. After all, it's not like those speakers couldn't just hire a camera crew and put up their own talk on Youtube. If TED has an unstated agenda in what speakers it chooses, it loses that credibility.
Fundamentally, it's not really about what TED's politics are. It's about the fact that it has built a brand as a nonpolitical arbiter of "Ideas Worth Talking About" - not "Techno-Libertarian Ideas Worth Talking About."
Or would you like TED to allow some intelligent design bible-belt homophobe and an Iranian theocrat to give a tag-team speech on why Gay People Will Destroy Us All?
I should be more bluntly honest. The TED brand, in its most used practical application, is seen as a safe place for professionals to communicate ideas.
In circles where it ranges from impolite to outright forbidden to transmit political messages - no videos from the American Enterprise Institute, Democratic/Republican Party or Occupy Wall Street - it is safe to send a TED talk. In circles where even a link from NPR would raise an eyebrow, no one would think twice about linking to a TED talk.
And I freely admit that there are a ton of problematic assumptions in this, but that's the niche TED has carved out in the professional world. Even with just this whiff of scandal, I imagine that a lot of the people who forwarded TED talks will think twice in the future.
Notably, the same was true for Komen. Komen's biggest supporters were corporations looking for politically "safe" causes to promote in the workplace. Like the United Way, Red Cross and a ton of other favorites of the professional world, TED has built up a niche in the professional world dedicated to the impossible dream of "keeping politics out of the workplace."
TED process for selection is not fully transparent. So people can put whatever they want into the black box on both sides - selectors' biases are hidden so whatever the observers interpret that bias to be from the talks they choose to show. And when people expose part of it, it is generally the part that looks bad, because the good part is boring and not newsworthy.
Though anyone who would look down their nose at a NPR article rather misses the point of NPR (though I can understand how that might happen).
Was the speech in question particularly brilliant in anyway, or are people just praising it because of the message?
First off, you might want to stop using "censorship". That's Anderson's assertion, it's not backed up by the National Journal article, and Anderson has less than noble reasons for using the term.
And, in fact, it's by comparing Hanauer's speech to other TED-approved speeches on the same subject that the issue become apparent. Philishere already made the point earlier:
That is logic, and it's logic that doesn't favor Anderson, as he made it quite clear in his response that TED would only sign off on speeches if they are "framed" properly. That's a statement that should bother you.
it doesn't bother me that TED wouldn't present a talk where the speaker's views on, say, inner city crime, are framed in an incredibly racist way
why is this different?