Let me respectfully disagree with that.
There is an old adage that applies here: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." A closed-door convention would give our current political power structure in Washington and its Mainstream Media servants the opportunity to cause mischief and scare people.
"Why are the doors closed? A group of right wing whack-jobs and tea-baggers have seized control of 39 state legislatures, they're meeting in secret, and they're going to take away your rights. They may even be plotting to take away your government checks!"
We need two educational efforts. The first is right now, where the people need to be educated as to just what an Amendments Convention can and can't do. The fear factor needs to be reduced, not just to defeat the Washington power structure, but to defeat Schlafly and the Birch Society, who both mean well but don't know what the hell they're talking about.
The second is during the convention. I don't care if Ed Schulz or Rachel Maddow covers the convention for a TV network with less than a hundred thousand viewers. But I do care about C-SPAN, and I care one hell of a lot about Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.
There is one other reason. In 1787, there was a sense of deference in American society. Americans were content to let men they perceived as their "betters" do their thinking for them. If Gen. Washington and Dr. Franklin said the doors to the convention should be closed, then they should be closed. That sense of deference and trust no longer exists. The fact that enough states applied for a convention is proof itself that there is no longer trust, much less deference. There needs to be coverage of the convention, and the process must be transparent, else the lack of trust will envelop the convention itself.
> “...not just to defeat the Washington power structure,...”
I would prefer to use the phrase “not just for States to restore balance with the Federal power structure, ...”
> “...but to defeat Schlafly and the Birch Society, who both mean well but don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.”
Exactly spot on. The Birch Society is nothing except a bad example that MSNBC and the like would love to chatter up 24/7.
And Phyllis Schlafly is a good writer with a damaged brain brought about by years of drinking the treated Potomac River.
But the point was that States need not reveal their internal deliberations per the Constitution. I agree that it would be near impossible to keep it all a secret and your point is a very good one that CSPAN is key.
The reasons a modern convention would benefit from a news blackout and oaths of silence from delegates are the same today as in 1787.