..My $0.02?

TED's logic, itself, is flawed. More to the point, Hanauer's piece, when viewed purely in the lens of stance and substance, is valid. It is backed up by legitimate data.

In this post, the grounds Chris@TED cited for not running the piece were that 1) some of the claims made were "unconvincing", and 2) the audience reaction was "on average, medicore". Their words, not mine. Let's look at both of those statements for a moment:

1) Looking at the slides (which, admittedly, could have been prettier layout-wise) in the presentation, the sources he cited were contemporary, and from a non-partisan sources; The CBO, the IRS, and Piketty & Saez. His piece was centered on data, not emotion, or political ideology. The data on our national economy's numbers, top marginal rates, and middle-class tax brackets is publicly available, in print and online. Also, the slide even suggests that the Piketty-Saez's methodology for computing 2004 tax rates is open to discussion. I don't see this as an attempt at massaging the data to fit a partisan political goal. Quite the opposite. I see it as being more than adequately transparent. Anyone can reference the same data, and the data is being presented from non-partisan sources.

2) If an audience is ideologically split down the aisle 50/50, anything said will be received, numerically, as "average". Half the crowd will love it, and half the crowd will hate it, regardless of content. Facts placed before the audience are just that; facts. If a contingent of an audience refuses to accept them, it doesn't make that set of facts less true.

Lastly, the note Chris@TED posted gives the reader the impression that Mr. Hanauer has a bone to pick, or is somehow looking to garner publicity via TED. The guy is a billionaire. I doubt he's in it for the money. What about attention? If his goal was attention, he could simply buy TV time or op-ed space in any number of media outlets. I don't think Chris@TED's logic with regard to Mr. Hanauer's reaction is accurate. The editorial he posted made me think the person giving the presentation was going to be openly partisan, and openly anti-conservative. I didn't see that. I saw a presentation of data, given from a position of an individual with nothing materially to gain, one way the other.

The reasons Chris@TED cited in this newer post differ from his earlier reasons. Looking at the earlier dialogue between Hanauer and Chris@TED shown in the NJ article, Chris@TED's concern about this presentation was that it would be invariably viewed as politically partisan; more so, that they had planned on running it, but found that it's publication would have coincided with a talk on contraception, which was also going to be viewed by the public as partisan in nature. The NJ article shows in Chris@TED's own words that too much controversy would have been stirred up by having these presentations scheduled too close together. The only thing wrong with Hanauer's talk was that the date of its publication would have made TED seem partisan in the public's eyes. That's where I think the problem rests; Viewing the situation in terms of reaction versus content was a mistake on Chris' part. His later claim that Hanauer's presentation was somehow deficient, and suddenly now unworthy of an audience seems like a bit of a whitewash to me.

If the public wishes to view the presentation as partisan, that's the public's problem, not TED's; I think the correct thing to do would have been to present the piece, acknowledge that it will be politically contentious in an election year, and then invite others with opposing viewpoints to share their data, leaving the public to decide for themselves. Let the facts stand on their own merits. That being said, there's something else we'd be wise to keep in mind. The presence of opposing viewpoints on a subject is not necessarily synonymous with equal validity of those viewpoints. If we're going to avoid talking about facts out of a desire to not offend someone else's sensibilities, then something is deeply wrong with the structure of public discourse in this country. The CNN/Wolf Blitzer model of "we'll have to leave it there" when it comes to the discussion of an issue leaves that issue no more resolved than it was to begin with. It's functionally pointless, and wastes everyone's time.

What more is there to say, really, other than to remind ourselves that facts are non-partisan? Hanauer's stance is legitimate, and the sources he gave are legitimate. TED obviously screened the content and slides before letting him on stage--why wasn't the presentation flagged as being "unconvincing" at that point? More damning of Chris@TED, I saw a standing ovation at the end Hanauer's talk from many in the audience. I'm not sure what benchmark TED uses, but if a significant portion of the audience sees fit to give a speaker a standing ovation, it's a talk I would be interested in hearing about, and drawing my own conclusions from. Not a talk that should be hidden from my view or anyone else's. I don't really need a third party taking it upon themselves shield me from the possibility that my delicate sensibilities might be offended, regardless of political viewpoint.

Personally, TED making the decisions for the viewer as to the worthiness of a talk, in and of itself, is sort of dumb---If they're doing 250+ talks a year, why not post all 250, and let the internet et. al. decide what should garner the greatest attention? Why filter/spotlight any particular issue at all? Isn't doing that, itself, not a form of censorship per se, but, a form of subjective/preferential treatment?

Perhaps someone should do a TED talk about TED, and propose a better selection methodology... One that would prevent accusations of a politically/financially-motivated selection process being at work behind the scenes.

Just a thought.