You wrote: "If you agree with their guidelines then you agree that pretty much all non-mainstream speakers should not be allowed to speak at TED/TEDx don't you think?"
Yes, their guidelines would eliminate most non-mainstream speakers. Notice that I don't agree with their guidelines in the sense that I wouldn't issue the same guidelines. But I agree that they have the right to issue those guidelines; that the guidelines represent an understandable CHOICE; and that SOME kind of guidelines are necessary if the franchise is to mean anything.
In the case of Rupert and Graham, I believe they have been presumed guilty and sentenced without trial. TED seems to have gotten carried away by fanatic, populist ideologues who excel in rhetoric as much as they lack in substance, and committed a near crime against their own guests. Make no mistake: Although TEDx is a franchise, TED's association with it has been made pretty clear here, so Graham and Rupert were not only guests of TEDx, but of TED too. In exchange for their gracious favor to TED, they have had their reputation attacked, their source of income threatened, and their work unfairly characterized by generic, false, and defamatory statements. This has been the way they have been thanked by the TED organization for their gracious contribution. As a former speaker, I feel the injustice here as though it had been done to me. This whole thing really upset me, precisely because of my heart-felt association with TED; a brand-name I used to promote liberally in all my web presence (no longer). I felt betrayed by a close friend, and still feel; more by the day.
Graham and Rupert should have been contacted by TED in private and asked for input with regards to the accusations others were making against them. Then, it should have been clear that they said nothing that the organizers shouldn't have known they would say, because it's their bread-and-butter material. If they were invited to speak in a conference about changing paradigms, everybody should have known what they would say. If TED then regretted having made the invitation, and then concluded they should change their guidelines, fine! It would be a lesson for them for future events. But don't blame their guest speakers for TED's own change of heart. Don't create a fallacious strawman to hide TED's own mistake. Don't try to destroy Rupert's and Graham's reputation for having done exactly what, I am sure, they were invited to do by the local organizers, just so TED can save face.
Mar 20 2013: Joe, I think TED has their work cut out for them. It's not easy at all to weed out junk from original thought, worthy of consideration, on the basis of generic guidelines. The only way to do it with some accuracy is to analyse each talk on a case-by-case basis, which is impossible in the case of a franchise like TEDx (it's only possible at the TED main event). So I don't envy their challenge and even sympathize very much with the difficulties they face. You see, it is indeed important for them, if the franchise is to mean anything, to NOT have totally-non-serious stuff (like History Channel's "Ancient Alien" material, which someone referred to) under their platform. I recognize it cannot be a just-open-the-gates-and-let-anybody-say-anything approach, otherwise the name 'TEDx' will stand for nothing. If you could buy only Mongolian meat sticks at one particular McDonnald's, what point would there be to the franchise? It would mean nothing to people. In conclusion, I am not necessarily against their guidelines, though some aspects of it (like 'argued for by many experts in the field') will simply eliminate all the paradigm-breaking, innovative stuff. It's a choice TED makes here, and I don't think it's illegitimate.
Maybe I am disappointing you here. But my main grievance with TED is not their attempt to separate themselves from nonsense; that I think is okay. My grievance is the way they treated the people upon whom they depend entirely: their speakers. TED is NOTHING without their speakers. These speakers are invited, they work for free, and they contribute nearly all the value that TED has to offer. Not only do they have to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, they need to be treated with particular respect and courtesy, for they are making a favor to TED. To be continued...
Mar 20 2013: I had three published books when I gave my TEDx talk in 2011. I was so used to referring to my books in my previous speaking engagements that it had turned into an automatism. It took quite some rehearsing to undo the automatism, and I am glad I didn't come even close to referring to my books in my TEDx talk. It was difficult, but possible. Moreover, I find the guideline of NOT referring to one's own books entirely reasonable and legitimate. All this said, and without the intent of providing any excuse for what is simply a failure to comply with guidelines, I can sympathize with an author who lets his tongue slip here, because of the 'automatism.' I suspect this might have happened to Rupert.
Mar 20 2013: While you mention potentially legitimate reasons for removing a talk from the TED video platform, none of these reasons were argued by TED. Instead, the speakers were unfairly defamed for illegitimate reasons that went to the heart of the credibility of their work (full disclosure: I do NOT subscribe to Hancock's 'theories'). These speakers were invited to present in a conference whose very theme was questioning existing paradigms. Their presentation contained absolutely no surprise, in the sense that what they said contained nothing that they hadn't repeated many times before. So while you bring up an interesting new twist, it changes nothing regarding the appalling treatment that these speakers were subjected to by TED, after having graciously donated their time and energy for the benefit of TED. As a former TEDx speaker, I remain appalled not only by the original defamatory statements made before any chance was given to the speakers to defend themselves, but by statements made by Chris Anderson afterwards, towards both the speakers and the people commenting on the TED blog, as well as by the general manner in which TED continues to mishandle this.
Mar 20 2013: One has to take one's hat off for the 'cleverness' with which TED is managing this. If you create enough pages on the subject, cleaning up the comments each time a new one is created, and then keep forever insisting on further 'debate' without ever addressing the criticism or taking remedial action to correct your errors (like a prominent apology for your atrocious treatment of your own speakers/guests), you can probably get away with anything, can't you? Congrats Chris and TED. The effect is that, I, for one, won't attend or speak again at a TED-related event. Whatever else might happen, you lost me, in profound disgust.
Mar 20 2013: One has to take one's hat off for the 'cleverness' with which TED is managing this. If you create enough pages on the subject, cleaning up the comments each time a new one is created, and then keep forever insisting on further 'debate' without ever addressing the criticism or taking remedial action to correct your errors (like a prominent apology for your atrocious treatment of your own speakers/guests), you can probably get away with anything, can't you? Congrats Chris and TED. The effect is that, I, for one, won't attend or speak again at a TED-related event. Whatever else might happen, you lost me, in profound disgust.
TEDCred score: +4.30 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
You wrote: "If you agree with their guidelines then you agree that pretty much all non-mainstream speakers should not be allowed to speak at TED/TEDx don't you think?"
Yes, their guidelines would eliminate most non-mainstream speakers. Notice that I don't agree with their guidelines in the sense that I wouldn't issue the same guidelines. But I agree that they have the right to issue those guidelines; that the guidelines represent an understandable CHOICE; and that SOME kind of guidelines are necessary if the franchise is to mean anything.
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
In the case of Rupert and Graham, I believe they have been presumed guilty and sentenced without trial. TED seems to have gotten carried away by fanatic, populist ideologues who excel in rhetoric as much as they lack in substance, and committed a near crime against their own guests. Make no mistake: Although TEDx is a franchise, TED's association with it has been made pretty clear here, so Graham and Rupert were not only guests of TEDx, but of TED too. In exchange for their gracious favor to TED, they have had their reputation attacked, their source of income threatened, and their work unfairly characterized by generic, false, and defamatory statements. This has been the way they have been thanked by the TED organization for their gracious contribution. As a former speaker, I feel the injustice here as though it had been done to me. This whole thing really upset me, precisely because of my heart-felt association with TED; a brand-name I used to promote liberally in all my web presence (no longer). I felt betrayed by a close friend, and still feel; more by the day.
Graham and Rupert should have been contacted by TED in private and asked for input with regards to the accusations others were making against them. Then, it should have been clear that they said nothing that the organizers shouldn't have known they would say, because it's their bread-and-butter material. If they were invited to speak in a conference about changing paradigms, everybody should have known what they would say. If TED then regretted having made the invitation, and then concluded they should change their guidelines, fine! It would be a lesson for them for future events. But don't blame their guest speakers for TED's own change of heart. Don't create a fallacious strawman to hide TED's own mistake. Don't try to destroy Rupert's and Graham's reputation for having done exactly what, I am sure, they were invited to do by the local organizers, just so TED can save face.
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Maybe I am disappointing you here. But my main grievance with TED is not their attempt to separate themselves from nonsense; that I think is okay. My grievance is the way they treated the people upon whom they depend entirely: their speakers. TED is NOTHING without their speakers. These speakers are invited, they work for free, and they contribute nearly all the value that TED has to offer. Not only do they have to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, they need to be treated with particular respect and courtesy, for they are making a favor to TED. To be continued...
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
A comment on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
A comment on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk