- 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.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Mitch SMith 50+
This is looking too close.
This issue is not about the talk - it is about the governance of valuable resource.
Mr Anderson has made a borderline value judgement on behalf of TED.
That is his duty and function.
Here you dissagree with one of his value decisions - does that also mean that you dissagree with the rest?
It is a factor of leadership that the leader is allowed to lead.
If the leader is not permitted to lead then leadership fails.
Perfection is not prerequsite to leadership - vision is the key factor.
The future is never fully seen.
Is Chris blind?
I think not.
Is it your duty and function to make these difficult decisions?
No.
Are you willing to sit comfortably passing idle judgement?
Obviously.
Which of you are now prepared to follow up your judgement and offer your service as Chriss' replacement?
None of you.
Am I wrong?
Barbara Bearden
That should not be discouraged so Yes, you are wrong, in my opinion. But that is the beauty of this process--we can agree to disagree!
Mitch SMith 50+
I welcome your criticism in a big way!
And I thank you!
I saw an imballance of focus in the discussion and did my best to widen the arena of discussion to include what I know as a leader and forum administrator in the past.
The wider politic must be recognised to advance this issue.
I now have the insight whereby I can give Chriss some value for his mission.
I will post that separatly, and I thank you for your honesty and engagement!
Edited to ask - are you applying for Anderson's job? If so - send me your CV and I will decide whether or not you are the better person for the job. If I see it .. I will support your attack.
We are talking about destroying a man's entire life's work. If you are the better man . well, so be it. But this is a cruel undertaking.
Edit again: how about you offer your services to help anderson? He needs it. Have you more than words?
Joanne Donovan 30+
Chris explicitly says the talk was 'too partisan' that has nothing to do with quality control or any of the other issues you discuss, he has openly says it was an act of political censorship.
We, the TED public are justifiably dismayed and outraged by this. TED is a source of hope for many of us, an open forum that allows free dialogue. Some of us even hope however idealistically, that it can even become a vehicle for positive change.
Now we begin to see that it too is affected by the greed machine's dirty underbelly of lobbying and purchasing power, the same rot that has crept into all our societies,undermining our freedom and democratic rights.
If a group or individual has applied pressure to have that talk pulled because it was 'too partisan', that is a serious breach of our trust in TED and a sorry day for us all. I believe that is exactly what happened and I call Chris to account for it. So far I am dissatisfied with his response. The only thing that would restore my faith in this 'free speech' forum, and cheer me up for the week, would be to see the talk run.
Will that happen? No. Instead TED will wait until Brian's conversation closes and hope it blows over. Business as ususal.
Barbara Bearden
Mitch SMith 50+
So the intrinsic violation is between TED's published mission statement and the actual practice of it?
I have observed that Chris and TED are now in a political lock that prevents them from backing down - that's unfortunate.
Personally, I think Chris just failed to see his danger.
If the TED organisation can only exist by corporate sponsorship, then it becomes a fine line to tread: publish and be destroyed? Or not publish and survive to take the battle into an arena you can win? Fight or flight?
I still maintain that Hanaeur's talk is selectively framed to preclude criticism of the capitalist myth. THis is a political crusade to influence taxation policy - thus making it the problem of the government/people while allowing the corporation impunity from any real structural reform.