>called out a (perhaps well-meaning) but tone-deaf presenter //

Does she mean he has a physical impairment, which would seem more than a bit crass to point out in the context, or is this an idiomatic/euphemistic expression that isn't coming over right?

She likely is referring to the tone of speech, not a tone as in note or frequency.

I've never heard "tone deaf" used in this way; hence the question. Is it a common USA use? Burgeoning or erstwhile?

"tone deaf" is common, but it is being replaced by "clueless" over the last 10-20 years:

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=tone+deaf%2Cclu...

burgeoning, is, compared to erstwhile:

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=erstwhile%2Cbur...

erstwhile replaced quondam in about 1910:

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=erstwhile%2Cquo...

I don't know that it's common in the USA, but it seems to be well understood in these parts at least. It's used to describe anyone unable to accurately gauge the mood of the people they're addressing and who thereby offends them with their remarks.

Hi there...thanks for the clarifying! Language is incredibly loaded and we're all guilty. I absolutely intended that the presenter was not attuned to the impact of his speech. Here's more on that thread. http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2012/02/startup-dudes-cut-sex...

We're peoples divided by a common language, as they say. Thanks for clarifying.