Hi Trinity Hi I'm Eddie I can help you today. That's a cool name from the Matrix a movie I like a lot. This question is not simple but it boils down to 1st amendment.
Freedom of the press is protected by the Constitution but I believe only under National Security meetings, Judicial Hearings, or Top Secret type meetings should media access not be allowed. Some privacy is needed obviously people like being frank in lunch or private conversations but in open debate in Congress totally justified and even if a secret Congressional meeting takes place an investigative reporter I believe would be justified because without transparency Congress, Executive, and Judicial can basically have secret meetings that are not the interest of US or US citizens and nobody would know.
What if Presidential candidate was saying he end Fracking I feel they most did at some point but secretly met with Exxon or Shell said he wouldn't do it and would expand it. This is the very important and integral role of the press but I feel most corporate media doesn't do that unfortunately.
I would answer this question by highlighting meetings should be secret like a tactical military attack that if enemy found out would put US service men and women lives at risk. Or possibly pre-trade negotiations that if another country found out the hard stops and conditions would give a foreign country excessive leverage. Any meeting were a person would be harmed as a result lack of secrecy or a person or country would have undue harm or advantage at cost of US would justify not allowing the media coverage. Judicial hearings with a jury should not allow coverage because of undue influence from negative or positive bias coverage can negatively impact a person whether on the jury or even the judge.
To be frank we as citizens don't have privacy anymore and not sure why outside of a select few exceptions why politicians allowed so much privacy.
If you like further assistance feel free to reach out for a first free session ok.