On the record
By Staff
At a recent debate between state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R) and his Democratic opponent, at-large School Board member Janet Oleszek, the civic association running the event decided to not allow it to be videoed. Another state Senate debate in Fairfax this week was cancelled because of concerns about videotaping.
Unfortunately, these are not the first examples in recent memory that The Times has heard of video cameras being banned from public meetings – a trend we find disturbing.
Although civic groups are not held to open-government standards, when these groups are having meetings on government-related subjects and they invite the general public and the press to attend, it is reasonable to think of those as public meetings.
The ostensible reason that video cameras have been banned from such gatherings is that the elected officials involved are afraid of clips of the meeting, particularly clips that have been edited to remove the context or distort a point, being broadcast via YouTube or other Internet sites.
While there is some validity to that concern – former Sen. George Allen's (R) "macaca" incident last year offers an example of how such clips can spread like wildfire online – it does not outweigh the benefits of videotaping.
Having a complete recording of an event allows those who were unable to attend the meeting a chance to see for themselves what happened there. It is also an indisputable record of what was said at a particular event or meeting, creating an opportunity to hold politicians accountable for what they said in public, as Sen. Jim Webb's (D) campaign was able to do with Allen.
The fact is, any medium could be used to misrepresent someone's public statement, be it video, audio or a written transcript.
Banning one form of communication may help save a politician from embarrassment, but it does a disservice to the average citizen.