The problem is, of course, defining what is "harmful."
I've sat in a fair number of Australian Parliamentary hearings. Not as the person sitting behind a name plate answering questions, but a few rows back, with a thick binder in my lap, ready to provide detail or context if necessary (mostly on the always-hot-button issue of climate change). It was my bosses in the "hot seat." Yes I saw quite a few hostile questions from politicians, quite a few answers taken out of context, quite a bit of ridicule bordering on abuse, of smart capable people whom I respected deeply. After such hearings, I was sometimes part of discussions strategising how we could frame answers to politicians' questions, statements and other communications to minimise the risk of distortion and being taken out of context. The risk can be minimised but it can't be eliminated, IMHO. Ideologues of all political flavors in government and media are ready, willing and able to cherry-pick and distort officials' statement. They do not hesitate to ridicule and abuse public servants in government bureaucracies. Even over the most seemingly bland, bureaucratic, buttoned-down responses to provocative questions.
With all due respect to the Secretaries Board, once you are at the level of the Australian Public Service where your job is to appear before Parliamentary inquiries, Senate Committees (e.g. Estimates), this kind of exposure is an occupational hazard. From what I've seen firsthand, you need a fairly thick skin. Politicians, especially those in opposition to the government in office, see you as fair game for hostile, leading questions and ridicule. The media similarly do not respect your sensitivities. If you are afraid of being ridiculed in social media and your words being taken out of context it may be time to reconsider your career aspirations. Most hearings are public and can be watched by anyone - this is as it should be in a democracy. Thoughtful citizens who want to hear and read what was actually said in its full context can watch the streamed proceedings and/or read the transcripts. And make up their own minds.
The original hearing video is already public. Someone can clip a few dozen seconds from it, and of course that can change the context. But the person making the clip does not control the original information. The full video is still there. Officials, supporters, journalists, or anyone who believes the short clip distorts what was said can respond with the full video: “There’s more before and after this. This clip is misleading.”
Both sides have the same ability. You can make a clip; I can provide the full context. You can explain; I can respond. Then let the public decide.
If short videos might take things out of context, and the response is to restrict the public from clipping, sharing, and commenting on them, that is restricting the flow of information.
The problem is, of course, defining what is "harmful."
I've sat in a fair number of Australian Parliamentary hearings. Not as the person sitting behind a name plate answering questions, but a few rows back, with a thick binder in my lap, ready to provide detail or context if necessary (mostly on the always-hot-button issue of climate change). It was my bosses in the "hot seat." Yes I saw quite a few hostile questions from politicians, quite a few answers taken out of context, quite a bit of ridicule bordering on abuse, of smart capable people whom I respected deeply. After such hearings, I was sometimes part of discussions strategising how we could frame answers to politicians' questions, statements and other communications to minimise the risk of distortion and being taken out of context. The risk can be minimised but it can't be eliminated, IMHO. Ideologues of all political flavors in government and media are ready, willing and able to cherry-pick and distort officials' statement. They do not hesitate to ridicule and abuse public servants in government bureaucracies. Even over the most seemingly bland, bureaucratic, buttoned-down responses to provocative questions.
With all due respect to the Secretaries Board, once you are at the level of the Australian Public Service where your job is to appear before Parliamentary inquiries, Senate Committees (e.g. Estimates), this kind of exposure is an occupational hazard. From what I've seen firsthand, you need a fairly thick skin. Politicians, especially those in opposition to the government in office, see you as fair game for hostile, leading questions and ridicule. The media similarly do not respect your sensitivities. If you are afraid of being ridiculed in social media and your words being taken out of context it may be time to reconsider your career aspirations. Most hearings are public and can be watched by anyone - this is as it should be in a democracy. Thoughtful citizens who want to hear and read what was actually said in its full context can watch the streamed proceedings and/or read the transcripts. And make up their own minds.
Yep. Criticism, even unfair or obnoxious, comes with the territory.
The original hearing video is already public. Someone can clip a few dozen seconds from it, and of course that can change the context. But the person making the clip does not control the original information. The full video is still there. Officials, supporters, journalists, or anyone who believes the short clip distorts what was said can respond with the full video: “There’s more before and after this. This clip is misleading.”
Both sides have the same ability. You can make a clip; I can provide the full context. You can explain; I can respond. Then let the public decide.
If short videos might take things out of context, and the response is to restrict the public from clipping, sharing, and commenting on them, that is restricting the flow of information.
Here's my advice to those who want to prevent being mocked -- if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.