As a pilot, I understand there are nuances of aircraft operations one does not want seen on the evening news, at a management review, or even in training, for that matter.
As one who sometimes works in rather tense big-stakes non-aviation situations in which *everything* is photographed 100 percent of the time, I have to say that you quickly get used to it, whether or not you mind.
The problem is: there's a lot of money, jobs, lives, etc. riding on the success - or at least the non-failure - of every flight.
The folks with money, power, and choice who underwrite, authorize, and patronize aviation, respectively, want every possible means to assure that the process works as well as possible - especially to assure that catastrophic problems are detected and not repeated.
I believe the real wager is simple enough: either flight deck crews must accept and submit to a higher level of scrutiny in regard to every aspect of their work (just wait 'til they start with the bio-sensors) or face the alternative that hands-on crews will increasingly be designed out of the critical path in future airframe generations - and they'll still have to submit to intensified video and other kinds of logging.
It would be a shame if near-term personal discomfort and work-issue tactics led to a strategic displacement for the future role of the profession as a whole.