One of the most popular video series on the internet today is undoubtedly TED Talks. By now, almost everyone is at least familiar with what they are, and most people have probably watched one. TED, which stands for technology, entertainment, and design, has been a very successful platform at sharing new ideas. These videos have been well praised for their engaging speakers and profoundly inspirational messages. TED Talks have come from many professors and experts in their respective fields, while also being delivered by many famous celebrities. With all this praise however, they have received a lot of criticism from many different angles, and I will focus specifically on Evgeny Morozov’s “The Naked and the TED”.
To put it bluntly, Morozov refers to the way TED Talks are “bullshit”. This may seem overly harsh considering the popularity of TED Talks; however, I tend to strongly agree with him. The first point that Morozov makes is that the speakers who give TED Talks tend to use irrelevant statistics that, while true, really don’t actually improve the credibility of the argument. Often times these numbers are just to make the audience think that the opinion that the speaker holds is more valid, even if there isn’t a strong correlation. Additionally, this critique can be extended to the use of different types of graphs and charts (where it is easy to manipulate axes, giving a skewed view of said visual).
Another strong criticism that Morozov holds is that of celebrity TED Talk speakers. He focuses specifically on Parag Khanna and mercilessly tears apart his background and credibility. While he is only talking about Khanna, Morozov is questioning the viability of celebrities’ expertise in certain areas. This point exposes the truth that many times these celebrities are just paid by major companies and institutions to give a TED Talk that supports the viewpoint of the entity paying them.
This highlights one of, if not the biggest, problems with TED Talks- they almost always have a one-dimensional view on an issue. TED Talks are notorious for not ever offering evidence that contradicts the thesis established. While it is unfair to ask a presenter to completely refute their own argument, it does seem dishonest from an academic standpoint to only tell an audience, who most likely has little to no background knowledge on the topic, only one side of an argument. This inherit bias unquestionably tricks people into thinking that their side is right and that there isn’t another approach to the problem or topic.
Finally, a criticism that Morozov touches on that personally irks me is the formulaic approach to these talks. Several spoof talks have been made where presenters give TED Talks about “nothing”, where they make fun of the entire method for giving the talks. From the inspirational quote to the useless graphs to the excessive mannerisms of the speakers, these spoofs truly say a lot about the way TED Talks are given. While TED Talks certainly do have some value, I think it is important to always take things with a grain of salt no matter how good they seem.