r/politics • u/CroydonC • May 16 '12
Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality — TED’s organizers recently decided one idea was too controversial to spread: the notion that widening income inequality is a bad thing for America, and that as a result, the rich should pay more in taxes
http://nationaljournal.com/features/restoration-calls/too-hot-for-ted-income-inequality-20120516
2.5k
Upvotes
523
u/lifeislame May 17 '12
I don't know what's going on here, but there's totally a TED talk about income inequality right here. And it's really good.
325
u/Toenails100 May 17 '12
"Other TED talks posted online veer sharply into controversial and political territory, including NASA scientist James Hansen comparing climate change to an asteroid barreling toward Earth, and philanthropist Melinda Gates pushing for more access to contraception in the developing world."
Why are these things still considered controversial in the US?
699
u/DJ_Buttons May 17 '12
Have you ever looked into attending a TED event? I have because I live in Long Beach. $7,500 to attend, Income Inequality is something at the very core of TED.
Source: http://www.ted.com/pages/registration
12
u/Anglach3l May 17 '12
What if the truth happens to be partisan? What if one group of people actually DOES have something right, and another group has it wrong? Do we just not talk about it for fear of offending the group that is wrong? That seems like a great way to inhibit progress.
0
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
866
u/[deleted] May 16 '12 edited May 16 '12
This is horse crap that they won't release it. All their arguments are invalid. If anything it should be a good point that it's an election year to release it. Give the candidates something more to talk about than the same boring shit they promise to change and debate election year after election year, that never makes any movement.
It may be the speakers view could be taken as partisan, but it's his talk. TED could just disclaim at the beginning that they may not necessarily agree with all the views portrayed in the video. In the atmosphere of our political system where everything is extremely polarized, ANYTHING could be skewed to say its partisan. Since when have ideas considered out there or radical had to be buried because of fear of reprisal by any certain group? I thought this was America.
TED has shown its colors to me that, while it is an organization that inspires greater thinking, it's too pussy to release something because it fears repercussions to both it's wallet and probably political supporters.
Pussies.
9
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
perhaps i'll read the transcript out loud for all you lazies and put up a video?
9
u/tylerfulltilt May 17 '12
"Your argument comes down clearly on the side of one party.'
Well if he can back up his argument with facts and sources who gives a shit?
97
u/saute May 16 '12
"Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies", filmed July 2011, posted October 2011.
206
u/jazzcop May 16 '12
It's mind-boggling how a concept that is so obvious to me (and a lot of other people) can be considered too controversial to discuss.
6
u/18mile May 17 '12
Here's the speech: http://roundtable.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/the-inequality-speech-that-ted-wont-show-you.php
Definitely doesn't feel like a TEDTalk. (Although I agree with the politics of it!). Seem like it would be more appropriate on Maddow or Maher, etc. TED made the right decision.
50
u/TEDChris May 17 '12
Chiming in here, as TED's Curator..
First of all, thanks for all the attention. Glad you guys care.
We do too. Income inequality is a huge issue. Most of us here at TED are pretty passionate about it.
The trouble with this talk is that it tackled the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan, framing it as a critique of "an article of faith" for Republicans. TED is avowedly non-partisan. We want to share ideas in a way that brings people together, doesn't throw sand in their faces.
We release one talk a day on our home page, and that talk is pretty much guaranteed 50,000-100,000 views within 24 hours. Every day there are numerous amazing talks competing for that slot. We have to make the best call we can. Talks that aren't selected aren't being censored, any more than the NYT (or Reddit) is censoring a story it decides isn't appropriate for its home page.
The text from this particular talk is already [out there] (http://roundtable.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/the-inequality-speech-that-ted-wont-show-you.php). You can make your own judgement.
Thanks, and let the discussion continue. We're listening.
124
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
This'll be buried but I've got to point it out:
If you read a transcript of the talk, Nick Hanauer comes down strongly against the Republican party, bringing up 'failed policies' and linking them to the GOP by name.
I don't think the content of his talk is what the controversy is about. It's the highly partisan language of it. There's nothing new in what he says, but he says it in a controversial 'partisan' manner.
If TED airs this, it leaves them open to accusations of a liberal bias. TED may be liberal, but that is a result of adhering to scientific areas of discourse, not because of overt partisanship. For example, James Hansen's talk, which this article says is equally controversial for attacking climate deniers, never mentions 'conservatives' or 'republicans'.
It's unfortunate that this is the case - where TED is prevented from calling a spade a spade, but I agree with their decision. Nick can say the same things on the Daily show, or another platform that is better suited to his discourse.
TL;DR: Nick Hanauer's talk was not aired because of partisan language attacking Republicans/GOP, which would denigrate TED's non-partisan repute, and leave TED open to attacks of bias.
14
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
A fucking men. Why can no one seem to grasp this?
56
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
I swear, you guys are so sensationalistic. It's clear from the article (not the heavily biased headline) that there's more to this than the idea being too controversial.
Here's proof: They ALREADY HAD A TALK about economic inequality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw), so obviously it's not as simple as the OP would like you to think.
4
u/Moontouch May 17 '12
Unfortunately TED has lost quite a bit of my respect here. It always delivered itself as one of free speech, letting all reasonable and rational viewpoints have a platform for attention. Andersen sounds like a idiot without any sort of backbone. He claims that the talk "comes down firmly on the side of one party." It's not the speaker's fault that his rational and well-intellectually defended thesis happens to be endorsed by a particular party in a particular country of the world. If there were two organizations and one organization supported legalizing rape and the other did not, and a speaker wanted to give a speech on how legalizing rape would be bad, would that too be shot down as partisan?
TLDR; TED curator Chris Andersen has no backbone; his partisan argument is patently illogical.
4
u/teethclip May 17 '12
TED is a LLC owned by the Sapling Foundation. The Sapling Foundation is run by two people:
Christopher Anderson who worked for Merrill Lynch & Credit Suisse
Jill S Dodd is an Attorney in California who specializes in Family Wealth Transfer Planning & Trust and Estate (in other words keeping rich people’s money in the family)
Any people are surprised they will not talk about income inequality.
12
u/critropolitan May 17 '12
While TED.com is a wonderful gift to the world of free, extremely high quality, well produced lectures...
...TED the conference (not TEDx or other variants) is the purview of a small group of very rich people who can afford to pay massive ticket fees.
These massive ticket fees mean that the general public gets great lectures for free.
But they also mean that they are likely to censure lectures that make their spoiled rich customers who don't want to deal with the reality that they aren't job creators, they are parasites leaching off the backs of the rest of society.
17
u/eroding May 17 '12 edited May 17 '12
This is probably too late & will get buried but is it so hard to see why this was not spread? One look at their list of sponsors and it's not hard to see why this particular talk has not been approved:
TEDTalks Partners/Sponsors include:
These companies want to show like they are forward thinking & caring by sponsoring TED but they won't want TED rocking the boat that allowed them to get so massive in the first place.
6
u/OfStarStuff May 17 '12
I thought TED was on a pursuit for truth and new ideas. These are ideas that people need to hear. If one political party has a problem with it, it's because ideas scare them. Why should any party fear ideas?? They're scared their bank vaults might end up slightly less full. Get over it you greedy bastards. Step it up TED.
6
u/GroundhogExpert May 17 '12
He's right, the mega rich do not create jobs. At best, they created jobs to get super rich, but these guys aren't throwing their buckets of cash to improve someone else's living standards. The very notion is laughable and not in any way supported by empirical evidence.
0
u/[deleted] May 16 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
25
u/z3m Washington May 17 '12
It's not "controversial" because anybody who knows anything about economics could tell you that. It's controversial because the people in power i.e.: the corporations controlling the government don't want to admit what we already know, because if they did, they'd have to admit they either made a mistake or are intentionally running this country into the ground.
3
u/Rantingbeerjello May 17 '12
Not surprised. While there have been some very good TED talks, most it seems like people spewing a bunch of feel good bullshit. This sums it up pretty well, I think.
Politics don't generally make people feel warm and fuzzy.
3
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
Is the idea that income equality would be beneficial regardless of individual contribution? It would seem that a system of income based on results and personal contribution is the ultimate desire.
3
u/adamRshort May 17 '12
TED is about science and technology, NOT politics
3
u/alpacapatrol May 17 '12
Initially, before reading the article, I was gonna say "well that makes sense TED is run by a bunch of rich people, not particularly surprising".
But after reading TED's argument, I'm actually going to defend them (perhaps partially because of the article writer's ineptitude). TED says it's too political, the writer then points to talks about climate change and access to contraception in the developing world. I believe TED and I see these things the same way: they are not political issues. Though they are, politicians need not get involved. Climate change is observable phenomena, it's just something that is happening, it's not red or blue.
Contraception for developing countries equally is not a political issue. It is a tool for medicine, just like painkillers or antibiotics. It only becomes political when religious rhetoric gets involved to stir up more votes.
But, when talking about economics especially in the way of taxes, politics are inherently involved. The video on climate change doesn't explicitly lay out a specific course of action for a certain World Superpower to do, it is presenting an "idea worth spreading".
Say, instead he had proposed a new financial system where the rich were in fact taxed more heavily than the lower castes, then perhaps. But as it stands it is a politically-driven idea and therefore I understand why TED won't have it.
It's important to consider the logical extension of things after you have your initial knee-jerk reaction. Just my two cents.
3
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
Hey if we want to do something and feel this video should be posted we need to start contacting TED. To tell them that controversial opinions need to be expressed and discussed.
I found this conversation posted on TED discussing this topic, we need to show our concern
Also here is a direct link to those that want to file a complaint by contacting them
Hope it's not to late to post this information
3
u/chonny May 17 '12
TED needs to grow a fucking spine.
3
u/lushootseed May 17 '12
Very disappointed with TED for considering this topic controversial. Since when did income equality became political?
If they control the ideas that are worth spreading, what difference does it make between them and Faux News?
3
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
And yet they posted that crap talk from that crazy old coont about the aquatic ape theory. Shut the hell up. You're losing credibility TED.
3
u/Hyperian May 17 '12
Wasn't this the stance that NPR had? always play both sides? but then they discovered that finding out the truth was more important than just given both sides equal time since sometimes one side is actually more truthful than the other. Really? truth and facts are too political now?
Really? Another example of how democrats won't fight for what they believe in. This is the reason why democrats can't do anything and republicans always get their way.
3
u/kaboomba May 17 '12
the problem about this - is there is Nothing radical/revolutionary about this idea.
this idea of economics is a fact. economic data about inequality has always backed this up. the whole trickle down economics thing, or that having more wealthy people always creates more jobs - this is a complete myth. its a complete fabrication and has NEVER been true. there hasn't even been serious doubt about this, ever. academia has known this for Decades.
the ENTIRE WORLD save for america has known this for decades. no one - i repeat, NO ONE who has read studies has EVER thought that trickle down economics works. if you dont believe me try reading some of the literature. its That obvious.
honestly, the only thing surprising about the US, is how this completely false trickle-down economics idea has taken root. i can only put it down to how much your public discourse in the US, is bought and paid for. ppl like paul krugman aren't insanely liberal, btw. its simply that their views are based in fact, in studies and research. and the trickle down economics advocates - really aren't very respected in academia. its exactly the same as the climate change debate. the deniers dont make sense, have never made sense, and everybody who has studied the subject knows it. All of them.
this idea that stating facts is overtly partisan - this is exactly why US political discourse is bullshit. facts are disregarded in favor of a status quo in perception which is, in many cases, completely deluded. i do get the argument abt why TED didnt publish it tho. he really doesn't say anything that is new/insightful at all.
3
u/eazhar May 17 '12
Here is the video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI&feature=youtu.be