Larger facilities are rented or gained access to as whatever the event will allow greater density to fulfill whomever comes. Whether it be private/public that regard is required for fire safety reasons, alone. The planners usually try to match or get some facility that will accommodate those that show up. On the issue of private/public access, it should be clearly understood to prevent mishaps of any kind that may warrant intervention as the lesser term to be used here and trespass becomes the reason for detainment(arrest?). At the same time, it has been custom to grant access to the journalists, but then again that's beforehand. To simply show and then been challeged is not uncommon, but someone is charge can grant immediate approval or not. Just because you didn't follow procedure (if one is in place) then don't expect it be granted, outright. At the same time, one can generate negative interest or disapproval if it falls short of "bullying" or be so underhanded that only the approved journalist get in, rather the media in general. In this case, the recent "new" blogger wanted in and then was disapproved. In light of the events, it may have been proper, but in defense of the organizers to have such a recent journalist(blogger) become newly made, does on the surface rise some doubts. Regardless, the vial of the media has been clearly stated by the Constitution of "freedom of the press", but again, you can't expect it to always be so black and white.
IMHO, I would have been under the impression the metting was open to the public to exclude excessive levels of people. So, why was this journalist so easily detained? What he on a list? Was there a media challenge? Applied but not approved beforehand? Then, later to grant access but the podium as well? -----Willy