- Brian Adam
- Alpharetta, GA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why is the Nick Hanauer talk not posted?
I haven't been a member for long, but I've been watching TED talks for years now consistently checking in for new videos. Frankly, the talks have gotten a little bland in the past few months. Then I hear through the grapevine of Nick Hanauer's lecture and how Mr. Anderson has decided to censor it. I'm extremely disappointed in the decision. This is an issue on the mind of many people in America and those interested in American politics and economics. It's an something that deserves to be heard by many more people than the elite TED audiences, and what better way to spread this worthy idea than posting the lecture online, sooner rather than later. The cited reason for omitting the lecture was that it was "too political." I have to say that is a terrible excuse. When has TED attempted to remain apolitical? Speakers have discussed societal ills like poverty and war; Jonathan Haidt has put forth an explanation of the psychological differences between the Republicans and Democrats; Sam Harris proposed science can substitute religion as a source of morality, and very early on in TED's history Richard Dawkins was allowed to promote militant atheism; other hot button political issues like contraception and climate change have been discussed here (often more than once); and all of these speakers had the video of their quite political talks posted. All of a sudden we can't view here a perspective on the issue of income inequality from Mr. Hanauer? I seem to remember Richard Wilkinson discussing a very similar topic posted back in October 2011. Mr. Anderson, I think a more substantial explanation is in order regarding your decision not to post Mr. Hanauer's talk online other than it being "too political." I can't speak for anyone else, but I see the decision as an act of cowardice reflecting on the organization as a whole. It suggests that we, the public, have lost TED as a forum for intellectual discussion and consideration regarding important issues, political or otherwise.
Eoghan Nolan
The talk in question has been described as 'pointless' and 'partisan'. The last talk I watched on Ted was a nice old man demonstrating in real time how to use less paper towel. I suspect this could also be described as mediocre and pointless and imagine that if your livelihood involved the manufacture, distribution or marketing of paper towels it might also appear partisan.
Ted, do please feel free by all means to practise quality control. Note, however, this doesn't have to be after the event. It could begin with the invitation to a speaker to expand on a topic they are known for, and might continue right up to a rehearsal preview of the talk in question.
Bruce Ball
Krisztián Pintér 200+
the fun part is that "trickle down" economics indeed bad science, but not for the reasons hanauer rakes together. the topic could be discussed in an interesting way. but this talk is not much else than slightly disguised political propaganda (aka lip service).
Bruce Ball
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Don Wesley 50+
"Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people."
Scott Nesler
Internet technology will inevitably allow more to participate in social topics. Whether the discussion brings vision to a higher good is to be questioned.
Thank you Mr. Wesley for the quotations. I've been collecting them for a tool of association. A tool allowing readers to tag an author's thought from a post, essay, or thesis. Once the tag is made future readers can grade the tag from highly relative and supportive to highly relative and counter supportive. The tool is still in the idea phase.
http://www.dogoodgauge.org/site/DoGoodGauge/page_contents/display/63
iGoogle Do Good Gauge Quote Randomizer
http://www.google.com/ig/adde?moduleurl=http://www.dogoodgauge.com/site/DGGGoogleGadget2.xml&source=imag
Don Wesley 50+
Thank for responding to the quote; why did you write! Maslow’s Theory of Needs gives us direction to better understand what we respond to. We may come to the party for food [a need] but quickly run to the door to leave when the fire alarm rings [another need]. Designing processes [creating] that will move society to “betterment” is genius.
Another Quote – “Intellectuals solve problems. Geniuses prevent them.” - Albert Einstein
I invite you, to another Conversation where I am trying to lead some into better society - http://www.ted.com/conversations/11617/at_what_level_does_the_cost_of.html
Also I thank you for linking me to Google! ??
Until soon
Don
Don Wesley 50+
"Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." — Margaret Mead
"Few will have the greatness to bend history; however, each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." — Robert F. Kennedy
Jonathan Smart
You may sign it here:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/post-nick-hanauer-s-talk-on-ted-com.html.
Don Wesley 50+
While sitting in on a men’s meditation breakfast this morning, the topic of “Regret'” held our attention for 90 minutes.
Personal stories of guilt and shame, floated into being Talks. The men were mostly wealthy farmers, including one Federal Police Officer.
One good line, worthy of being called wisdom caught my attention – “What goes out, is what pays the bills.”
I immediately wondered if that applied to TED. My mind all too quickly, said no; it was “what came in that paid the bills.”
How would our group of commenters response; I wondered.
Scott Nesler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI
I would bet a majority would find Mr. Hanuaer's lecture of interest. How many agree with him and the level of agreement will vary by individual, ideology, religion, and locality. A media has the right to ban the visibility of a thought if the thought is contrary to the purpose of the media. TED has a financial purpose. What individuals have to say in this media can conflict with TED's purpose and potential for financial gain.
The question should not be if Mr. Hanauer was censured and removed from TED's media, the question is what kind of media would bring demographic visibility to an argument revered by some and held in contempt by others? Mr. Hanauer's lecture may be worthy of the final draft, though someone else's argument may be measured as offensive because it lacks respect, it is incomplete, it has not been properly reviewed, the collateral effects are discounted, and/or it is factually incorrect. Could a new media provide opportunity and feedback to an author to improve an argument?
Could there be a true public media? A media for the public and by the public. A media where quality and demographic visibility is determined from the measurement of the participants. A media where feedback motivates an author to improve the quality and respect for the argument. Is the thought posed in the following TED idea possible?
http://www.ted.com/conversations/11219/let_s_build_a_better_media_to.html
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Scott Nesler
My argument is whether a media could be developed removed from the distraction of financial gain. Whether computer algorithms could utilize public measurement to steer who, when, where, and how an argument acquires visibility. Could such a media steer individuals to topics where contribution evolves into quality, coherency, respect, and solution instead of chaos, mayhem, disrespect, ignorance, bigotry, greed, as well as the other attributes of immoral behaviour.
Mr. Hanauer identified what he saw as a problem. Hiding that thought reduces visibility to connect those wishing to participate in the solution. Maybe a new media should examine how to attract individuals willing to build a thought instead of tear it down.
Follow-up:
To answer Mr. Pintér query on "what argument do I have for publishing a mediocre and partisan talk?" Mediocre is a subjective measurement with little intellectual insight. TED is worthy of a better response. Here are my suggestions;
What is the Do Good Gauge?
http://www.dogoodgauge.com/site/DoGoodGauge/page_contents/display/170
A Better Way for Political Discourse
http://www.dogoodgauge.com/site/DoGoodGauge/page_contents/display/110
This I Believe
http://www.dogoodgauge.com/site/DoGoodGauge/page_contents/display/66
Plus the ability for readers to tag relative association to an author's argument and for the public to gauge that tag from highly relative and supportive to highly relative but counter supportive. Examples include quotations, fallacy, constitutionality, and prior legal decisions.
This idea is copyrighted in the Creative Commons by a Share-Alike license. I hope those interested will keep me in mind
Krisztián Pintér 200+
the reasons given were: mediocre and partisan. not offensive.
now what arguments do you have for publishing a mediocre and partisan talk?
Mohammad Mohammadipour
This question reminded me of another question:
Is Henry Ford a qualified person for being the Ford manager?
Is Steve Jobs a qualified person for being the manager of ….
...
Colleen Steen 500+
In my humble perception, the people you mention were/are ALL very qualified, and many times, some folks don't agree with the way things are managed:>)
In the years I've been involved with TED, I've always found Chris Anderson, and staff members to be very responsive to members complaints and concerns, which they have been again for this issue:>)
Mohammad Mohammadipour
Thank for your response..
And, one thing more…I don’t know exactly who Mary is in TED organization...
But, regarding her emails, she is really kind and polite...
I am sure she is not related to this Nick Hanauer issue…
..i am kidding..
Colleen Steen 500+
Don Wesley 50+
"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law." — Martin Luther King Jr.
"People crushed by laws, have no hope but to evade power. If the laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the law; and those who have most to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous." — Edmund Burke
Barbara Bearden
Allan Macdougall 30+
Barbara Bearden
However, I will state these are definitions posted in the name of furthering discussion---which has now been labeled by thsi person as a way to hide behind the issue??
These are others definitions, not mine, and I offer them up in the spirit of the continuation of this thread for 6 more days and to help expand the discussion to the larger issues at play that have been brought up. I am simply a contributor that has been attacked on a personal level by what I consider trolling to intimidate contributors to leave the discussion.
If the discussion if finished, fine, but if not, let's keep the ball in the air, despite the naysayers. Thanks to everyone for their participation in this forum TED provides. Does not mean they are excluded from the discussions. If my posts have been perceived as personal attacks, them please accept my most humble apologies, they were never intended as such.
Barbara Bearden
1 day ago: A petition, calling for ted to post Nick Hanauer's Talk.
You may sign it here:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/post-nick-hanauer-s-talk-on-ted-com.html.
Barbara Bearden
2. World English Dictionary@ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor
censor (ˈsɛnsə)
— n
1. a person authorized to examine publications, theatrical presentations, films, letters, etc, in order to suppress in whole or part those considered obscene, politically unacceptable, etc
3."Economic censorship is more difficult to define. The Roman essayist Cicero used the immortal phrase "Cui bono?" (Who Profits? -- the ancient version of our "Follow the money."). But numbers may tell only part of the story. In a situation where there is economic censorship, is it isolated or undertaken in conjunction with some type of political censorship? Is there a monopoly within a certain country that is threatened by competition, or a class of oligarchs that is threatened by the emergence of real economic opportunity for smaller firms? Is the economy in a locale more prone to monopolistic arrangements than to genuine competition and innovation?" @ http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/
4."To understand censorship, and the impulse to censor, it is necessary to strip away the shock epithet value that is attached to the word at first utterance. One must recognize that censorship and the ideology supporting it go back to ancient times, and that every society has had customs, taboos, or laws by which speech, dress, religious observance, and sexual expression were regulated. In Athens, where democracy first emerged, censorship was well known as a means of enforcing the prevailing orthodoxy." @ http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/
Don Wesley 50+
thank you for bringing the references to my eyes and soul.
Prevailing Law in Quebec [Canada] is being challenged in the streets right now.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Aubin+rule+grave+danger/6668289/story.html
“The rule of law is in grave danger.”
Don
Mitch SMith 50+
Thanks for the link!
What is your take on this quote?
"if the public ignores laws enacted by a democratically elected representatives, the system falls apart."
Barbara Bearden
Don Wesley 50+
First, I must tell you that an old friend sent me the subject story; he lives in San Francisco, and was unaware of this TED conversation. He and I have been friends for over 70 years. I am a Conservative and He a Democrat. We both see the injustice growing everywhere. “The opposite of Justice is poverty”, as was powerfully delivered as a lesson by a wonderful TED Talker just a short while ago.
Second, is what came into my mind; the "War Measures Act by Prime Minister Trudeau;" Trudeau, was very concerned that Quebec could be occupied by a foreign country. I know the story behind the story.
Third, and without writing an essay, I see a revolution in thought, which is swelling and a Crowd which is shouting “If we can’t heal it, clobber it.”
Fourth Hanauer's story has the seeds of a giant killer and the crowd is growing.
Fifth, having been a young Military Officer at the age of 19 and having lived as child through WWII I recognize Propaganda emerging.
Sixth, this is not my logic being presented; it is a creation of intuition leaping from my soul that is crying out aloud.
[As I say this there are tears in my eyes]
Seventh, I believe it will not be stopped.
Eighth, we have a “Nancy Drew” mystery solver in our midst.
I don’t want it to dilute what has been given to me to say; I will add nor take away anything.
Something moved you to ask me, Mitch.
Peace be with.
Ancient Don.
Mitch SMith 50+
I appreciate your analysis - I had my own ideas, but wanted to get perspective - from both you and Don (since the quote is from Don's link)
I think it high-lights a large part of the issue of this thread. It's good because it covers both the content, and the context of rules, representation and discression.
Mitch SMith 50+
Many thanks - I appreciate your well considered reply.
I asked because, in the past, I have had a great belief in the rule of law, but now I'm not so sure.
The quote is, to me. clearly "spin" .. but it has seeds of real concern in it. I was not ready to discard the sentiment, but undersatnd what is the real motivation of the writer.
Maybe, if the system is not shown to represent the public, then .. surely it should be fixed before it falls apart? I would dearly love to return my full support to the rule of law.
I too feel something approaching, but the storm of words covers it. I try to retreat into science, but there it is again.
In this thread, it is a bit lke the demonstrations in Canada - difference being that TED are not elected .. and the answer must be in how serious they are to give representation to the subscriber.
In my country, if I have a question about the way my representative is representing me, I write directly to ask. I am always replied - whether I agree or not, and sometimes I am peasantly surprised. I will sign pettitions and such public demonstrations only as a second resort.
But there seems a deep bifurcation between the reality of government and the awareness of issues in the comunity. My most urgent lobby is to get psych resources into the detention camps holding refugees. A couple of programs were started, but not much result is forthcoming. And in the media, it is all about assuming the worst of refugees and how they can be punished and villified more. So much so, that it becomes a major policy vote-winner to hurt these defenceless people more.
Indeed - clobber over heal. Many of the comments under today's talk on bad laws underscores this .. this brings tears to my heart..
My best best regards to you Don.
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Barbara Bearden
Aja Bogdanoff 20+
Aja
Barbara Bearden
John Frum 30+
We have all seen the talk, and we may all watch it again, as many times as we wish, from wherever we are. TED is not doing anything to stop us from doing so. How is it censorship?
Barbara Bearden
I simply posted the definitions I found on several cites with the website link so one could go and view the article in its entirety and decide for themselves or to help add to the discussion of whether or not people feel it is censorship of a kind--there are many example of private censorship if you read the articles as well as others--as this part of the topic is a recurring theme with other posters as well. I did not add comment to the post to let them stand as they are written for people to read and continue the expanded topic of what is censorship in this light or not, along with the broader economic topics at play. Certainly you are entitled to your opinion but have you read them? The conversation was extended by TED so obviously they feel there is some point as well to the discussions.
By all means add your points as to why you don't think it is censorship or how you feel about them not posting it or the merits of the economic points, Nothing is pointless--that is why we are here in the first place.
Thank you.
John Frum 30+
Barbara Bearden
John Frum 30+
I gave my reason already: We have all seen the talk, and we may all watch it again, as many times as we wish, from wherever we are. TED is not doing anything to stop us from doing so. How is it censorship?
Gilbert Cerise
TED 10+
Barbara Bearden
Anderson cited, specifically, his concern that “a lot of business managers and entrepreneurs would feel insulted” by the argument that multimillionaire executives hire more employees only as a “last resort.”
(The entire recent history of the fixation on short-term returns, obsession with “efficiency,” and “streamlining” of most American corporations escaped the notice of Mr. Anderson, apparently.) I can’t imagine this line-by-line response to all the points raised in a TED Talk happening for an “expert” on any subject other than the general uselessness and self-importance of self-proclaimed millionaire “job creators.” by ALEX PAREENE found @
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/dont_mention_income_inequality_please_were_entrepreneurs/
Barbara Bearden
The prevailing orthodoxy does not want these myths drug into the light of day for inspection and dialogue by the very masses they entomb.
Does this mean TED is part of the prevailing orthodoxy?
I think we all agree that it was not "too political" but rather offended the prevailing orthodoxy.
Enrico Petrucco 20+
Would you be interested to modify your conversations question post to link to some related to talks in order to bring the idea to the attention of more people? I feel this conversation should appropriately be embedded in relevant talks before the conversation time closes at the end of this month.
Personally I think that it should be related to the following:
Jessica Jackley: Poverty Money and Love
Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies
Jacqueline Novogratz on patient capitalism
David Cameron: The next age of government
Yasheng Huang: Does democracy stifle economic growth?
Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action
Everyone should watch Nick Hanauer on youtube (from watchextravideo) as it has been posted there by TED and already has 500,000 views in just 4 days.
Barbara Bearden
Barbara Bearden
About John Cook: http://www.geekwire.com/author/john/
This is an excerpt but the whole article can be found a the link above:
"We asked Hanauer about the decision not to distribute his talk, and here’s what he had to say:
'Although I am disappointed in Chris’s decision not to run my talk, I certainly accept his decision. He owns TED and it is up to him to decide what they share. I have great respect for him and the entire TED organization.
But I do disagree that my talk was too political or controversial to run. I got a sensational reaction to the talk at the conference itself, including a big standing ovation.
Even the people who I spoke to who disagreed were intrigued and moved by the eco-systemic argument. And many of the talks at the conference and on the TED website are similarly controversial. That’s what makes them interesting.
Further, if it was too political, why have me do it in the first place? They knew months in advance what I would speak about and I gave the talk word for word.
My arguments threaten an economic orthodoxy and political structure that many powerful people have a huge stake in defending. They will not go easily.' ~Nick Hanauer
These last two lines seem to be at the heart of the matter and why we continue to discuss this and ask it to be posted. To not post it now, is to further cement the conspiratorial ideas that the economic elites don't want us, the average guy, to know the truth of these perpetuating Myths. Myths I run up against while trying to talk to people who are not the 1% but have heard this so long it becomes a part of their own rhetoric in defense of policies. It is a house of cards that needs to come down. TED should help illuminate it not squelch
Don Wesley 50+
The relevant and larger issue, is what needs the light of day.
I agree with you.
Don
Jonathan Smart
You may sign it here:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/post-nick-hanauer-s-talk-on-ted-com.html.
Barbara Bearden
Joanne Donovan 30+
Barbara Bearden
Aja Bogdanoff 20+
Barbara Bearden
Jonathan Smart
Would you like to include, the option for the members to sign up to the petition,
in the extension?
Barbara Bearden
Joanne Donovan 30+
And if you understand economies in the 19th century way that view is plausible and I think a lot of people accepted it.
And look, lots of rich people accepted it because it's a super convenient thing to accept, right? What a great story that the less taxes I pay, the better off everyone else will be. This is a marvelously self-justifying viewpoint, but at the end of the day it hasn't worked.
It's kind of been a catastrophe for everybody in the country except people like me and I think it's time for us all to sort of look up and reexamine these assumptions and go another way.'
Mitch SMith 50+
No one has mentioned the elephant in the room - it is more responsible for income disparity than unballanced taxation - it is usury, and it gobbles up more than half of every dollar earned or spent.
It has mandated the dangerous practice of fiat currency and thrives on fractional lending - it demands unsustainable artificial exponential growth.
I say - shoot the damn elephant before you stomp on the rats.
Joanne Donovan 30+
Mitch SMith 50+
The irony is that no rule is sufficient beyond the frame of its casting. It is good for the moment, and then it is obsolete.
Everyone (including me) think they have nailed it - and we all go out to promote our vision. But it's not vision.
Life is dynamic. it is the rule of "Maya" that all things percieved are wrong.
The best we can do is adapt - and to do it we must treat our insights as past artifacts .. the older they get .. the less true they become - reality marches on .. we can do more than follow.
I get stuck .. we all get stuck.
This is why the great prophets preach forgiveness. Let us all do the best we can - that is more than enough.
(edit: Joanne, I really should not even be spending time here in the TED forums .. I have no idea why I am so attracted. I should be in my workshop persuing my temporal mandate - to provide for me and mine. ANd yet, I cannot turn away. Perhaps this is a social meme that requires sustinence - I'm OK with that, perhaps it is a new form of life that we should promote as fathers and mothers? But the science tells me that this is no more than an adiction. And .. to what purpose does this adiction work? Perhaps as a venue for me and you to deliver our secret value? maybe, maybe not. There is something - I cannot see clearly enough beyond my desire to give. DOes that make me human? Maybe .. maybe not ..maybe the human I desire to be? If so .. well, at least I am not alone)
Joanne Donovan 30+
In these times, we need hope. TED brings a sense of hope.
Barbara Bearden
Joanne Donovan 30+
Lesley Rickard
Barbara Bearden
TED 10+
If you're interested in TEDTalks on income inequality, start with this playlist of talks and blog posts:
http://blog.ted.com/2012/05/17/playlist-the-roots-and-effects-of-income-equality/
Thank you!
John Norland
I'm seeking to understand.