A Washington Post column published April 14 has generated quite the debate over freedom of the press versus the need to keep certain governmental matters private.

The article, Obama’s disregard for media reaches new heights at nuclear summit received 1300 comments within an hour of its posting. The summit, which brought leaders of 47 nations together for a series of meetings, led to an agreement among nations to take meaningful steps to secure nuclear materials.

In his column, Dana Milbank is critical of the administration’s decision to keep meetings private. “Reporters, even those on the White House beat for two decades, said these were the most restricted such meetings they had ever seen,” he writes.

Many of the commentors agree with Milbank. They note that it wasn’t just meetings that were closed off to the press, but in many cases ceremonial meet and greets were also limited.

But others point out this: consider the context of the summit. Nuclear proliferation is a matter of national, in fact international, security. There is a need to keep certain discussions private. Also, leaders may feel they are able to be more frank with one another without the glare of cameras.

What do you think?