TED Conversations

  • TED
  • New York, NY
  • United States


This conversation is closed.

Discuss the note to the TED community on the withdrawal of the TEDxWestHollywood license.

For discussion: http://blog.ted.com/2013/04/01/a-note-to-the-ted-community-on-the-withdrawal-of-the-tedxwesthollywood-license


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 3 2013: Personally, I believe that TED has every right to withdraw speakers or events as they see fit. It's their brand and they have a right to manage it. But where things get sticky, from my point of view, is when they discredit speakers, many with impecable credentials, as a way to justify their actions. It's brand management gone wild. It seems obvious that TED has an opinion in the debate of reductive materialism. Let's face it. You don't give James Randi (a man with 0 scientific credentials and a sketchy history of bending the truth, and supporter social Darwnism) the stage while decrying the presence of Dr. Sheldrake without making a bold statement of what your brand supports. If TED wants to be a mouth piece for the James Randis and Michael Shermers of the world, fine. That is their right. But they should be ashamed by dragging others through the mud to justify their actions. Or at least do the proper thing and facilitate a public debate. Let the public decide, or at least be exposed to some differing ideas on either side. Is it censorship? I suppose it could fit the definition, but why get hung up on that word? Maybe hostile brand management is a better term. I don't know. But it seems obvious TED is having trouble owning up to their position, which is a shame. It's not the character one would expect from a venue touting out the brand of open dialogue and exciting ideas.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.