Slog
News & ArtsThursday, May 17, 2012
Tech TED Censors Talk That's Too "Political"
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:01 AM
Well this makes TED Conference organizers look like cowards. They invited Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer to speak, which he did, about how the super wealthy are not actually the job creators that rich people trumpet themselves to be. "I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small," he told the crowd, adding, "an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me."
Hanuaer got a standing ovation from the crowd (a crowd that itself tends to skew to the upper class). What did TED do next? They're now refusing to release Hanauer's video because it's too "politically controversial." You know, it's too risky to admit that the middle class are the driving force of America's economy.
"If it was too political, why have me do it in the first place?" Hanauer tells GeekWire. "They knew months in advance what I would speak about and I gave the talk word for word. My arguments threaten an economic orthodoxy and political structure that many powerful people have a huge stake in defending. They will not go easily."
Fuck you, TED. But at the same time, thank you, TED. When an art museum censors a show because it's too controversial, the show makes headlines, and then everyone knows about controversial artists like Robert Mapplethorpe—and their art becomes more influential. Now lots more people know who Nick Hanuaer is, thanks to TED, and his message will become more influential. You can read his full speech here.
UPDATE: TED head Chris Anderson has posted the video on YouTube and has his own version of events. Anderson says Hanauer's talk wasn't banned—it just wasn't good enough to be chosen—and he accuses Hanauer off blowing up the controversy. More is here.
1
Could an organization censor a talk/piece/book with the intention of making headlines, thus publicizing the talk/piece/book and getting it heard/viewed/read in a way it wouldn't have otherwise?
No, I’m not suggesting a conspiracy, just wondering if an organization could or would do such a thing.
3
It's not politically controversial, it's controversial to the sponsors of TED, so it's financially controversial so TED doesn't risk their funding.
Not the first time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_(confer…
I wish people would wake up to what a New Age Workshop for Very Rich Geeks TED is.
7
8
10
First, it's an organization. It's not the government, it can't censor.
Second, Nick has made the same arguments in many public fora, both written and oral.
Third, Nick was invited to speak and delivered the talk. TED didn't prevent him from speaking.
Fourth, the organization maintains, rightly or not, that they release talks a little at a time, and have a huge backlog. The public interest in this talk may be intense, but that doesn't mean that TED has to decide to release the talk (from a very expensive paid conference) on everyone else's schedule. They shouldn't take the tack that it's political and thus inappropriate in an election year, as Nick is talking about socioeconomic justice and economics, not about who to elect.
They really should just post the talk, of course, but it's not nearly as incendiary as it's being made out to be.
[Cross posting]
Thanks, TED talks is such an obvious and blatant corporate/multinational crapfest for stooges.
Reminds one of Transparency Int'l --- begun and originally financed by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, et al. --- the usual suspects.
It’s Called Simple Arithmetic
$17 trillion
Between 2007 to 2009 American households lost $17 trillion in wealth and equity (as explained by Alan Kreuger awhile back).
$17 trillion
Between 2007 to 2009 the approximate amount pumped out to banks, private banks and corporations --- both in America and throughout the planet --- was $17 trillion.
The breakdown: $16.1 trillion from the Federal Reserve directly; $750 billion in TARP bailout funds, plus the costs paid out to various hedge funds, such as Blackrock, and Wall Street-affiliated law firms to oversee and manage those bailout funds ($150 billion).
Among American households: loss of jobs, loss of savings, loss of value in 401(k)s, loss of home and real estate value, followed by loss of credit to small businesses and companies, resulting in further loss of jobs, etc.
$17 trillion equals $17 trillion.
Simple arithmetic.
[Official Disclaimer: Some economists would argue that all the credit extended by the bailout funds, and the Federal Reserve pumping, was paid back, but the recent GAO report detailing how banks accessed other government funds to repay those TARP funds renders such assertions highly problematical.]
Recommended reading: Local Dollars, Local Sense by Michael Shuman
Bad enough they make TED a private club of douchebag best friends of famous douchebags, but worse that people think they are awesome for it.
19
F*ck you.
^look. I just censored myself. Anyone can censor and anyone can violate your civil rights if they are an agent of the government or are receiving funding from the government.
TED used to be cool. Now, it blows ass.
http://youtu.be/6PpXPra_Olg
I wish I had a big PR firm to handle my problems when I didn't get my way. Grow up, Nick.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
In Which Peter Steinbrueck Peforms in Blackvoice by Goldy
-
Egyptian Theatre to Close at the End of This Month by Paul Constant
-
The Monday Morning News by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (20) RSS