TED Community » Nate Mook

Comments

• TEDCred score: +6005.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Discuss the note to the TED community on the withdrawal of the TEDxWestHollywood license.

  Apr 2 2013: I was specifically referring to this comment from Larry, which yes, claims that TED is attacking him personally:
  
  "I can add my name to those of Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock as speakers who find themselves in TEDx’s crosshairs."
• +8

  A comment on Conversation: Discuss the note to the TED community on the withdrawal of the TEDxWestHollywood license.

  Apr 2 2013: Dave's point below sums up my feelings. But one point worth adding:
  
  Although I'm sure Larry Dossey and Rupert Sheldrake relish in playing victim here (as evidenced by Larry's post below) because they will get more attention to their work, speakers were not "singled out" here. It was the overall theme and approach of TEDxWestHollywood that drew concern, and TED did not simply make an immediate decision - they consulted with the organizer and could not find a mutually agreeable path forward. The event will still go on under a different branding, and nobody's work is being censored.
  
  As Dave said, TED is under no obligation to license its brand out, and if it has concerns about an event's program, it very much should discuss with the organizer and revoke the license if necessary. For the long-term good of the TEDx community and ensuring some level of quality in an open system, I'm really pleased with TED's approach here. Moreover, they were transparent about the process and reasoning behind the decision.
  
  Kudos to Lara Stein and the TED team for standing up for the rest of the TEDx community and making a tough decision.
• +4

  A reply on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk

  Mar 20 2013: But don't you see the conundrum you are creating? It's not about legality, it's about TED being a media company that decides what content it is comfortable sharing. In this case, it decided after the talk was posted (due to the open nature of the TEDx YouTube channel that requires no approval), and facilitated discussion about the talks. It was also very open and transparent about the decision it made.
  
  If the main reason for attacking TED is that the talk went up and was then removed, TED will be forced to start reviewing talks in advance to make sure it is comfortable sharing them under its brand. And instead of a talk like Graham's being moved to a separate venue and a discussion happening, the talk will simply never be shared - just like hundreds of talks from TED Conferences that never make it to TED.com for various reasons. How is that better than what happened today?
• +5

  A reply on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk

  Mar 20 2013: It probably should have been edited out. It wasn't an overt "buy my book" but he opens (1:30 in) with "What I do in my book, which is called..." and then goes on to name its two different titles, depending on where you'd be buying it.
  
  It's a tough spot. Obviously someone like Elizabeth Gilbert will reference her book in her story about becoming an author. But Sheldrake essentially just says "this is the argument I made in my book, which I'm going to repeat to you today."
• +5

  A reply on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk

  Mar 20 2013: Check out Roland Griffiths' talk from TEDxMidAtlantic! He's doing some really interesting research.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk

  Mar 20 2013: Mark: TED from day 1 has always made decisions about the talks it decides to share. It's always been that way.
  
  If you go to a TED Conference, you'll see around 80 talks. TED may only post 40 or 50 of those. That's just the way it works as a media company making curatorial decisions about what it wants to share under the TED brand.
  
  TED would never have become what it is today if it just shared everything with no editorial decisions, just as the New York Times doesn't publish every single article on its front page.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk

  Mar 20 2013: Steve: I assure you that the managing editors for the New York Times opt not to publish hundreds of stories every month that get written or submitted by freelancers.
  
  There's no evasion here, it's pretty simple: TED has always made curatorial decisions about the type of content it wants to share under its brand. There are never any guarantees that speakers at TEDx events (nor TED conferences) will get their talks posted on TED's media channels. The same holds true for hundreds of media companies out there, including the NYT.
• +5

  A reply on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk

  Mar 20 2013: It's completely irrelevant what the theme of the TEDx event was, or whether the talks fit into the theme. TED is a media company that makes curatorial decisions about what content it wishes to share under its brand. It has been this way from day 1 - this is nothing new. There are probably hundreds of talks from the TED Conferences that never make it onto TED.com.
  
  You also forgot to mention that Sheldrake opened his talk by promoting his book -- a clear violation of the TED rules that he should have read before taking the TEDx stage...
• +6

  A reply on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk

  Mar 20 2013: How is a specific TED Blog post and a TED Conversation purgatory? TED has promoted the talk on two of its powerful platforms. It's done more to promote open discussion about this talk than thousands of others.

• A reply on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk

  Mar 20 2013: Is this not public expression? TED has specifically highlighted the talk and asked for discussion.