David Hamilton

This conversation is closed.

Why isn't TED also a Television station? Couldn't it either make a lot of money, or support a lot of wishes?

Couldn't they just broadcast talks 24/7, and wouldn't a lot of us turn it on in the background? I would... Seems like a money maker to me. The History Channel is all about aliens and the end of the world, and The Discovery Channel is mostly about cutting down trees now... Is there even a niche market for smart television any more? Could TED capture it?

What do you think?

I edited the title, because I accidentally gave people the impression that I would rather have TED be a TV station, than an internet active search medium... That had never occurred to me, I merely thought it would be cool to also have a TED television station.

Also, the idea of advertising revenue, made a lot of people cringe. While personally, I actually don't mind the idea of the people at TED getting rich, and trying to make their content more accessible for TV, since everyone knows there are many less deserving organizations... I understand, that, in general, most people are angry at traditional ideas of capitalism now, and they immediately jumped to the conclusion, that basically, the corporations would take over, it would be dumbed down, and there would be a boat load of advertising.

That argument has tended to prove true as intellectual material tries to reach a broader audience, IE afformentioned The History Channel, which is now proud to say "Made every day"... No it's not, certainly not by Ice Road Truckers, or anyone else on The History Channel nowadays... So... I revise, both, to avoid the argument, and because I like this idea better anyway.

On top of remaining the same organization it is on the internet, wouldn't it be nice, if TED was also one of the first Not For Profit Television Stations. Still funded by advertising, but with small, living wage salaries, with benefits... and advertisers chosen by TED, with the goal of implementing ideas talked about on the shows. Or, chosen by TED's online community. You want to advertise here? What problem are you solving?

  • Dec 12 2011: I watch TV to escape, TED to broaden. I am happy with the current format of following threads of related talks, additional talks by the same speaker, depending on my mood. So this format is better for me I guess, I control the programing.
  • thumb
    Dec 11 2011: "Why isn't TED a Television station?"
    I think you're right. :). We should discuss the reasons for which TED should never be a TV station.
    For me they are (the order does not denote importance):
    1. TV is a passive medium, without any real possibility to give feedback
    2. Talks would be selected for you, you would be subjected to the selection criteria of others
    3. "Turning on in the background" is just what "Ideas worth spreading" do not deserve.
    4. The Editorial board would have to think about rating and Profits and would gradually have to change the meaning of "worth" in "worth spreading".
    5. TED would in any case become less credible, less open as a TV station
    6. And really, money making to support the organization is all fine, but not what this all started to be about.

    BTW: Does anyone have a Link to how TED actually works as an Organization? I've allways been curious how this is run.
    • Dec 11 2011: You raise several good points. I don't think TED itself would work, if only for the lack of material. Perhaps it could work as a non-profit station for younger enthusiasts to present their new ideas to a wider audience?
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2011: I don't know about the material. It's sad that the video outputs of TEDx are mostly lying unorganized on youtube.
        TED.com could also become a platform - a way of conceptually organizing - for the Tedx events fathered by it.
        There would probably be the problem of responsability for the content - so it would have to be clear that the organizers and not TED are responsable for any TEDx content
        I personally would like some sort of Poli-Wiki-Mindmapping System so Users could say themselves what talk goes with what other talk for them, so one could actually navigate through Ideas and connect the dots.
        These are also things TV isn't able to do.
    • thumb
      Dec 11 2011: I understand what you're saying, but I actually disagree with every single point you make, simply because I don't think TED would eliminate its functionallity online. "On in the background" is perfect for a TED Talk, because, it's not usually visual, it's a talk, so there's almost no visual component. Unless the speakers are utillizing visual media, I rarely watch TED talks, I am a bit of an odd character personally though, I will admit.

      I would say that money can increase production values and allow speakers to spend money developing better visual content, that is more engaging to the audience. I would also say that "active" media, is another word for "echo chamber where i only hear the words I want to hear"... "Passive", which in your mind probably means "programed into your head like a zombie"... In my mind means, exposing you to things other people like, but you might not have stumbled upon, on your own.

      I would just make the argument that there are benefits and weaknesses to both mediums. You Tube is Active, and I think Lady Gaga is the most popular singer on it : p
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2011: Thank you for your reply, David.
        Nothing more stimulating than a friendly disagreement :)

        For one yes, your proposal doesn't include transforming TED into just a TV. So, in a way my commentary was obsolete. I just like those people giving their undivided attention to a sort of non-profit cause. So that nothing other then the starry heavens above them and the moral law within them can influence their selections.

        You made me realize how much I was defending my own TED-habits. I am really interested not only in the ideas themselves but also in the people that generated them / advocate them. I really enjoy the body language and facial expression as much as the thing actually said. And I take my time for the talks, wanting not only to understand but also to "feel them". For me, the TED-collection is like a good restaurant where I shut my phone off, and give the food my entire awareness - not only for its nutritional value but also "for the soul". But this is only me, and why shouldn't people consume their food the way they want? I'm all for diversity.

        I'm sure money can increase value, but I'm affraid they will be incentives gnawing at the moral fiber like in the Schwartzberg Talk. Authenticity is one thing very nourishing here to me, and if you give someone more then the necessary money and tell him "go on be authentic"... I will believe it the first time I see it, but for now remain sceptical.

        I'm all for exposing myself to things other people like. That is why I think we should have something like a mindmap-thingy for each user where he could connect his inner-world-interests&views to talks and thus create a non-linear interconnected playlist.

        But in the end I come to agree with you in that if they could make a separate organization that just broadcasts the database making a program out of what is already there, which would be marketed and give them more money to rebuild this platform and what not. Why not?
        • thumb
          Dec 11 2011: You know... It's interesting... In truth, I pay way more attention to most TED talks than I do typical television or other medium. I actually have the same habit of trying to find more information on the speakers, and their work... I have, in general, however, developed a very "in the background" way of looking at most audio visual media... Like, I don't watch a lot of TV... but, it's on a lot. I would watch more TV if it was actually educational though.

          Some Discovery and History Channel shows still blow my hair back. Watching The Universe in HD is an experience... I kind of like that Choppers show, but it's not an experience, I'm not "watching" it, I'm playing video games, or writing. Usually when I'm watching TED... That's what I'm doing. I almost wouldn't want to background it... but, at the same time, it's better background than Ice Road Truckers, or Ancient Aliens. Basically, I just think both methods have merit, and it would be a nice option. Plus... I think technically you're "allowed" to be a not for profit TV station... wouldn't that be an interesting challenge to the market...
      • Dec 11 2011: Hey, there's a lot worse singers out there than Lady Gaga :p
  • thumb
    Dec 9 2011: Hi David!

    Isn't TV obsolete?

    I understand your point, but seams to my like it's going in the opposite direction.

    Regards!

    JB
    • thumb
      Dec 9 2011: Too true, not many of my friends watch actual TV in real time or even with the TIVO. The only thing I have seen on TV in years is Jeopardy! and even then only when someone I know is a contestant.
      • thumb
        Dec 9 2011: Hi Tobias!

        It's being 10 years since the last time I owned a TV (I have a screen, but it not connected to tv of any kind). Just watch Fifa World Cup at friends house :)

        Being more serious, Internet is interactive and more learning oriented, in the sense that you can research a topic you are interested real-time, comment it, look for more content, etc. TV is one way and with fix content.
        As far as I understand all efforts with smart TV aim to make it more like the internet instead of the other way around.
        One last argument against, current TED audience will probably prefer to access TED on the Internet rather than TV.

        Regards!

        JB

        PS the only argument for TED on the TV screen would be to give access to people that don’t have Internet and might be interested, but I don’t think that’s a strong argument.
        • Dec 9 2011: Is this not a biased poll? I mean, were obviously all on the Internet, so whos here to represent TV only? One would have to put this talk on the TV to get the people to know that it exists, because guess what, they're probably watching TV right now :-)

          And is the Internet more learning based, or is that what you personally use it for? Same thing applies to the TV. A lot of people mainly watch documentaries. But TV stations noticed, so now they put crap on documentary channels. Hence, We need TED TV!

          Personally, I watch TV while being on TED, so if there was a TED TV channel...
    • thumb
      Dec 9 2011: To an extent I agree with you... but you know where it isn't? Public. Throw it on at a coffee shop, or a bar near a college to be snooty. Work... Break rooms, private offices, waiting rooms, my dentist chairs have a little tv to distract you, lol, he was so proud of them, and they're so stupid... but people like TV's. Also the one benefit to ted as a TV station, even if they just did it as a TV station on TED.com that auto q's stuff for you... you'd watch things you wouldn't already be interested in.

      Also lots of parents leave their children in a room with the television while they pay bills or perform other tasks... TED could even function as a Baby Einstein channel of sorts, that gets your children used to people talking in an intelligent informed manner. I think there is definately a demand for it. Plus I'm not the only one who's ever goofed off and played a video game or chatted on ted, or the daily show forum, with a TV on in the background.

      Old people still like TV... I don't know, it's not going to make someone a billionaire, but I think it could turn a profit.
  • Dec 9 2011: I think a 24/7 TED channel would be a great Idea. Id even pay for there to be no ads on it! I for one am one who is looking for smart telivision, which has seemingly been reduced to the occasional Attenborough.
    Could one start it as an internet station and somehow get it from the internet onto the TV?
    I also agree with the documentary channels, 'swamp people' just is'nt history, at least not worth telling.
  • thumb
    Dec 9 2011: i hate to sound as a pessimist, but i think TED is less likely to retain its audiences with obnoxious realities shows in different networks.
    • thumb
      Dec 9 2011: I think it might simply find a small enough niche to turn a profit... Also I mention above, I think it should be a channel even on ted, like a random q... you can throw on in the background and look at other apps... Wouldn't that be cool? Because you lose the ability to choose what you watch, you randomly get exposed to things you otherwhise wouldn't.
  • thumb
    Dec 9 2011: That's a great idea, there's just so many dynamics involved that would have to be worked out first. When you turn on CNBC you know you're getting financial news and programs, so they know which advertisers to go after and which ones would sign on. When you turn on ESPN you're getting sports programs and they know which advertisers to go after. The only problem I would see Ted having is the fact that there's so many Ted talks about so many different subjects, it would be hard to identify what advertisers would be interested and what Ted users would tune in at what time. Making the ratings go up and down depending on the subject matter. Unless they had the program line up months in advance, then that would solve the problem. A different segment of lectures every week, and court advertisers based on the weeks lectures. That could work.
    • thumb
      Dec 9 2011: That's an important point and Idea... They'd have to pick a few "shows" for prime time... Get some of their big name speakers to do 22 shows a year... I was actually thinking for daytime tv, when you're home sick, or on vacation, or in the breakroom though... it would be kind of cool for it to be random, expose people to all sorts of different stuff. I really like the idea of just a TED channel here I could throw on in the background, force me to listen to stuff I wouldn't have chosen.
  • thumb
    Dec 22 2011: Because VIACOM pulled the plug! The market just wasn't there young man, good question, but no!
  • thumb
    Dec 20 2011: It is good as where it is
  • thumb
    Dec 16 2011: I don't think TED has the potential to fill the programm of a whole channel. At least not as it is now and trying to force it to produce such an amount of material would most likely degenerate the quality of it's content drastically. But what would really be a good idea would be an education-channel with TED-Talks in one or a few of it's shows. Broadcasting lectures from universities or lectures specifically produced for television...shows for kids that explain what evolution is or how a powerplant works or other stuff like that. The foundries for what I know today and why I'm interested in science were laid by shows I watched as a kid...With that in mind I most certainly would not want my kids to watch reality tv
    • thumb
      Dec 18 2011: I think I agree with this entirely. I think the only reason I suggested TED as a full network, was because I think it could just run in a loop until it increased in content naturally... and even that would out compete History, and Discovery nowadays. I think I'm more discontent with the current television content directed at an intelligent audience, than I'm certain TED TV would be a smash success. This may be a particularly American problem.
      • Dec 18 2011: I do wonder about the possibility of showing other Science/Educational shows not specifically TED stuff, but is educational in specific areas and fills the gaps between TED Talks or something.
    • thumb
      Dec 22 2011: "TED-Talks in one or a few of it's shows"... actually seems to be around already. I haven't experienced what it's like up-close and personal, but in 2010 TED has started to issue licences to broadcasters worldwide.
      http://www.ted.com/pages/427
      Especially area's where internetconnectivity is still poor, this is a good (or the only) way to expose people to TEDTalks. Apart from that I do think that any audience can and will benefit from TEDTalks being broadcasted on TV. It wil always rub off. Even the most greasy of surfaces will eventually be effected. In any case it's to be prefered to not broadcasting them for some cynical reason. Lokal stations are, within the guidelines of TED, in teh best position to decide how to "dress them up" i.e. how to present them and incorporate them into their programm.
  • Dec 15 2011: I totally agree with this! Wonderful idea :) The only problem is I would likely have a hard time doing anything else because I find myself, even with just the computer, glued to good TED Talks, and once I start listening I can't stop.
  • thumb
    Dec 15 2011: Since the day I first watched TED talks. I was wondering why I didn't see these types of talks on TV when I was growing up. I really believe TED can do more if it's on TV, maybe not as a channel but as one segment on a channel.
  • thumb
    Dec 14 2011: I am new to TED, but I kind of like the fact that this isn't on television. I think it would ber completely lost with the "Reality" programming that seems to be taking over. I don't like the fact that television makes certain lifestyles seem "normal". I don't like the way some ways of life are being taken advantage of. The 1000lbs family, Little People, Big World, The Duggars, and of course, who can forget Kate Plus 8. Way too much. And ignorance seems to be the newest trend watching people catch fish by hand, and so forth. I try to watch channels like TLC, Discovery, and National Geographic with my girls so that they can learn, but with shows like this?!?! I don't know, maybe I have too much faith in television to show us what the future could hold, but if Kate and the Kardashians are the future, somebody help us, we are going to need it.
    • thumb
      Dec 14 2011: All I can suggest... is... You're kind of making my point... Doesn't something smart need to compete with the trash they are already broadcasting on TV?... and wouldn't it be cool if TED, maybe Big Think, or a few other websites, created not for profit, Educational TV, to compete with all the nonsense?

      Even though television is a bit of a dying medium, people are still watching it... and it's horrible, and it's distorting our minds, and ruining our children... So wouldn't it be great, if there was at least the option, to go to a channel that isn't "reality"... it's lectures, and information. I know it's going to be a small niche market, but don't intelligent people deserve a television channel too?
      • thumb
        Dec 15 2011: I see your point. In the States it is PBS, in Ontario, we have TVO. Those would be perfect choice channels to introduce TED TV to. And I think that some older children may be able to get something out of it too. Especially when PBS has their fundraising, We do need more useful stations out there. Maybe TED could come up with a publicly funded, not government funded for sure, channel that would work out. I know my family would watch it for sure.
  • thumb
    Dec 12 2011: I think TED could be a starting point for a tv station, but not to become one. It could focus each day of the week on a different niche, and this way it would be specific to its target, without losing its identity.
  • Dec 11 2011: I like the idea that the 'TED organisation' isn't formatted on the incessant greed, influence and corruption of the current economic system, which is destroying the world.I like NOT having the opinions of educated people 'Dumbed Down' for the masses, who comsume everything they're told, 'guided' by marketiing and advertising. When I want to see something stupid and irrelevant , I turn on my TV.I shorten my attention span to 25-30 seconds, so I can tune out the commercials, and simply accept that 'there's nothing you can do' to make anything better.I follow TED talks and conversations, to expand my understanding and perceptions of the world, and to search for a sliver of hope that life might not be futile, that the everyone on the planet isn't totally corrupt, self-serving, and ignorant of the issues, (Which, by the way, we were told 30 years ago, in elemantary school, would 'someday' need to be solved, assuming we wished our species to continue existing on this planet.)TED has no place in a profit-driven system of broadcasting, and most people, i think, aren't intellectually capable of understanding the brilliance of the speakers, lecturers or premises which are presented here.The last thing the world needs is a 'FOX Presentation' of TED.
    • thumb
      Dec 11 2011: I would simply insist that I don't think it is technically illegal yet, to be a not for profit television station... TED could, theoretically retain control, and advertise electric motorcycle companies for 1/10 the cost of normal advertising. It could then generate fresh free broadcasts of existing TED talks, without changing their motives at all. I think it would be cool to have some not for profit sector competition in the television market.

      On a sidenote, I would simply like to suggest to you personally, that your attitude is the one currently destroying the world. The "Fuck regular people, they're too stupid to understand" attitude... This country was built by workers, farmers, miners, and engineers who did labor for a living. They are entirely capable of understanding, intellectuals don't talk to them anymore. There's not a single intellectual voice on television to sort through the bullshit anymore, because smart people don't take risks and "grow a pair", if you pardon my vulgarity, anymore. People don't tell it like it is... and so there are no leaders to follow.

      I'm reccomending that TED be a new choice for people to let their children watch, so they don't have to watch FOX news anymore, and your instant reaction is "dumbed down TED"... You don't have to watch it on TV... No one would take it off the internet... The internet will never turn into a passive media where you're force fed shit, well TED won't... I'm suggesting giving poor and stupid people more access to knowledge, and your instant reaction is anger at capitalism... That doesn't make any sense. Smart people need to chill a bit on the rhetoric.

      I certainly go overboard myself plenty.
      • thumb
        Dec 12 2011: I completely agree with you on this post, David. Actually, though I sense that you are getting a bit tired of the resistance that was given to your initial question, I feel that your vision and arguments are becoming more compelling and refined.
        I really enjoy being active in a forum that harbours such dynamics.
        I also truly appreciate the strong case you make for the nonintellectuals. As an intellectualomorph I have for a long time considered that we owe the rest of the society our part of reality put in understandable words. We shouldn't hide behind our big words to keep the unoverducated at bay, though we can still use them as a private sport. Snobism can be a nice hobby, if not such a big bunch turn it into a "superior calling".
        As Einstein was quoted in one of the talks: if you can't explain it in simple words, you haven't yet understood. (or so)
        I think it is our duty to give comprehensible account of our truths to our fellow humans.
      • Dec 12 2011: David, I am thinking along the same lines you are, but you are much better at putting it in words than I am. And sometimes you need to go overboard!

        It seems to me that a lot of people want to keep TED an exclusive club. And I think that is the real problem in capitalism. The rich are in their own club and trying to keep everyone else out. To them too, 'Snobism can be a nice hobby'.

        TV is still the number 1 form of media broadcast (fact), biased, maybe, but nonetheless it is what helps form peoples opinion. Noone here can say that TV has not influenced them at some point, or that they never learnt anything from it. If TV is no longer educational, is it not our Duty to change this? TED would be ideal to start the change, and a not for profit TV station could cause a revolution in the media industry. (Ideas Worth Spreading)

        Kudos David!
      • Dec 22 2011: Dave:As an 'uneducated', skilled tradesman, I feel kinda flattered that you automatically figured that I was a big-brain type person. All I was saying, is that I like the way TED allows intelligent ideas to be presented in an unbiased way, and I recognise that : to do so in television would require 'concillations' in content and presentation, and I think most people agree, most TV is stupid.PBS stations have been around for years, and they just arent popular. "The Masses" do not want it.
        I prefer to think that : rather than 'bashing capitalism', I was bashing what capitalism has done to television...(what could have been a very educational tool, had power and greed not taken it....)
        • thumb
          Dec 22 2011: I actually apologize for being a bit harsh in my response then... You make a very fair point... I would only like to say... It's our fault, that TV became this, it wasn't always this stupid. I don't think it's capitalism that's destroying TV, I think it's a growing anti-intellectual culture. I almost wish TED would take a risk and even lose a bit of money, or ask for donations, just because, it could be a tool to fight back. We need some heroes...

          In my opinion anyone who wants to learn, is a "big-brain type person"... There's not many of us left.
  • thumb
    Dec 11 2011: Kind of an odd sub Question... If we were willing to pay Akira Kurosawa to direct TED talks.... Could we make them popular? Obviously Kurosawa is dead now... and I use his name, only because I can't think of many competent modern directors... but I think it's an interesting question... I guess Peter Jackson would work as an example, District 9, was beautiful and amazing... So If we could pay Peter Jackson to direct TED talks... could we make them "cool enough" to actually be popular? Could we nudge the masses on to TED with flashy lights and production values?

    Do we even want the masses to watch TED? Or, are we all secretly a bit snobbish?
  • thumb
    Dec 11 2011: Forgive me for saying that but Ireland and UK are islands....;-)

    It is true that I view TED in a TV-like experience. Absolutely! But I am the broadcaster and I use material available on the internet to make a playlist/stream. In the US what you will get a a stream of ads interrupted by some TED outbreaks.

    But to comfort you some, In Israel, Channel 2 has a weekly TED program, broadcasting selected TED Talks. See for example program #17 http://reshet.ynet.co.il/PageHandlers/EmbedIframe.aspx?vmlId=191204&width=646&height=486&iframe=true&boneId=11922 and the TV guide
    http://reshet.ynet.co.il/Shows/Ted_video/episodes/ . Channel 8 (Discovery) has also a TED program.

    As a matter of fact, all major TV channels in Israel have their major content on the internet for streaming in addition to a scheduled broadcast. With DVR and VoD (Video on Demand) the format of TV is transforming itself.
    • Dec 11 2011: Lol! I watched the first link, and it looks like it says TED TV! (maybe it does)

      So they show TED on TV in Israel..... why are we arguing about it then? I just want the same thing here.
  • thumb
    Dec 11 2011: I think that, if you were to look at the TED organization more thoroughly, you would see they are more than a podcast. They are actively pursuing a host of venues and outlets for spreading knowledge (TED ED for example). They are a vibrant organization of people and ideas and are growing themselves organically ("organic" is one of the world's most misunderstood words, but TED is the definition of the word organic).
  • thumb
    Dec 11 2011: I respect your view. Still I believe that most people in the world have no TV but do have mobile phones. All mobile smartphone, including revived/RIP WebOS have TED apps and mobile devices are the future.

    As for me, I view all TED talks posted weekly so I don't have the "pain" of choosing, ignoring or disrespecting. And I do that with my family, viewing it on our living room large monitor, which is connected to the internet (playing MIRO).

    Personally, I would like to imagine that people would give full attention to my TED talk rather than having it as an ambient blubber. Maybe it sounds a bit selfish but it is a candid expression of what I think.

    We seem to differ in our opinions but this is perhaps because we are living on different places in space and time.
    • Dec 11 2011: I'd like to follow suit and watch TED on my TV, but alas, my TV only has a scart cable. I also do not own a smartphone. Cant afford either. HD TVs and Smart mobile phones are pretty expensive.

      But are you not watching a form of TED TV, even if played through MIRO?

      You may be right in saying it is because we live in different places. I actually think TV is better in Ireland and UK than in any other part of the world I visited (most Sky viewers would probably agree).

      I mean, in the US they have twice the amount of advertisement breaks, and there are rarely good movies on TV, but Sky are pretty good at keeping you entertained. This would probably result in less respect for programmes on TV, I would have to admit.

      But we are missing the point that current TV does not have any educational channels, and TED TV would fit right in as the respectable and educational channel. I mean, people will not leave it in the background if it is interesting. And parents would prefer to leave kids with the TV rather than the Internet, because who knows wha the kids will look up on the Internet? Definetly nothing age appropriate.
    • thumb
      Dec 11 2011: Just so you know, when I say, "on in the background", I mean that specifically for the talks that aren't visual. If there's a cartoon, or a visual presentation, TED requires my full attention. If it's Zimbardo standing in one place talking about the human mind for 30 minutes, I can give him my full audio attention, but clean my room, eat a meal while i watch, or even play solitaire, without missing a word. If you're looking at the younger generation, also, I have to suggest, that the future is in watching entertainment, while you play video games. We're slowly rewiring our brains to multitask, and we now like 2 forms of entertainment to be going at the same time. It's called ADD, and I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing, but it seems like the future to me : p
  • thumb
    Dec 11 2011: It's there already! A few options exist:
    1. Download the MIRO free player, select the TED SD/HD channel and start viewing until you are exhausted
    2. Use a Boxee. It has a TED channel that will play on your TV

    To be honest, I don't see why the future of TED viewing is linked to an outdated broadcast technology like TV where at any given point you have only one choice - viewing the editor selection.
    • Dec 11 2011: Im going to get me a Boxee so, when I can afford it ;-)
      Thanks for letting me know.

      Why do you think TV is outdated? Where are the statistics that more people are on the Internet than on TV? I mean I live with 5 other housemates, and we watch more TV than PC, and even when were on the PC we still have the TV on in the background.
      Heres 3 articles that show that TV is at an all time high (granted they are around 2 years old, couldnt find newer stats)
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/may/04/thinkbox-television-viewing
      http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/americans-watching-more-tv-than-ever/
      http://www.worldtvpc.com/blog/tv-viewing-figures-reach-all-time-high/
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2011: I live in the future :-)
        I simply observe how the young generation (below 18) live.

        MIRO is a free download and TED is not something I would advise to hear in the background when one is on his PC. It needs more respect/attention IMHO
        • Dec 11 2011: I do not think turning it on in the background is disrespecting TED. Just because its on in the background does'nt mean you are'nt listening to it. And even if you are not listening to something directly, your subconcious will hear it, and will that not have an impact aswell?

          And with the motto 'Ideas worth spreading', are they not worth spreading to all forms of media broadcast? There are a lot of people in the world that have a TV, but no Internet or PC.

          TED TV would also greatly boost the amount of people that know about it, spreading its ideas further than ever before.

          And by choosing what only you want to watch, are you not limiting yourself? I mean, online you are given a choice, on TV you are not. Most people will rarely try new things, thereby limiting the true potential of TED. I know we say dont judge a book by its cover, but we all do. As in, if you are scrolling through the TED talks, you generally make up your mind whether you will watch it or not on the title alone. In my opinion, that is disrespecting TED.