So you’ve probably heard about the Sarah Silverman fiasco at the TED conference by now. If not, here’s the recap: Silverman, who is notorious for her outrageous kick-ya-in-the-teeth humor, was asked to give a speech at TED, the well regarded org known for its brainiac and celeb-packed conferences. She accepted, 
showed and delivered a typical trademark talk, trashing an array of things – among them Sarah Palin’s recent rant about the word “retarded.” Silverman used the word as much as possible and said a number of un-PC things, including that she’d like to adopt a retarded child, but only one who is terminally ill because she’s “awesome like that” – and plus the kid would then have an “expiration date.”
Crass? Of course. Offensive? Surely some listeners thought so. Unexpected? Not so much if you’ve ever heard Silverman open her mouth before.
Chris Anderson, the TED organizer who invited Silverman to speak in the first place promptly tweeted about how “god-awful” she was. A Twitter-based ruckus between Anderson and Silverman featuring a bizarre side battle between Silverman and Steve Case (Case jumped in to defend Anderson) then ensued. The media hopped on the bandwagon shortly after and buzz and press coverage about the incident spread.
Love Silverman or hate her, my question is this: What was Anderson thinking when he invited her to speak in the first place? It sounds like she delivered material right in line with all the other material she usually delivers and he was taken aback?
The net-net from a communications standpoint seems to be a basic lesson: Do your homework before you hire a speaker. Keep “good” company, or at least know the company you keep.