They could only accommodate ten news outlets? Can anyone give me a good reason why they'd choose to make such important statements in a venue that can't hold more of the press?
It isn't a press conference? Of course, whether that's a "good" reason or not is up for debate, but many summits limit or disallow press access.
The better question is whether these specific outlets were targeted, or if they truly came to the door too late.
It might be interesting to compare this to historical press limits:
https://www.google.com/search?q=media+protests+white+house
And there are many who blame the previous administration for the current acceptance of press limits:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/...ld-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html
----------
Criticism of Mr. Obama’s stance on press freedom, government transparency and secrecy is hotly disputed by the White House, but many journalism groups say the record is clear. Over the past eight years, the administration has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials who talked to journalists.
Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records,
labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.
I experienced this pressure firsthand when the administration tried to compel me to testify to reveal my confidential sources in a criminal leak investigation. The Justice Department
finally relented — even though it had already won a seven-year court battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court to force me to testify — most likely because they feared the negative publicity that would come from sending a New York Times reporter to jail.
----------
More:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...426-obamas-legacy-the-trashing-of-free-speech
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/the_president_and_the_press.php
So I don't know what to tell you. The reasons behind limiting press access to a summit may simply be that press is a distraction from the work the summit intends to complete.
Or it may be a blatant attempt to hide important information and decisions from the citizens of the nation.
They aren't going to admit to the second, though.
What are your thoughts? Do you believe that the reporters were targeted, or that they should have made an unlimited number of seats available for them? Are you asking for more press access to the summit, and not just the little bit they are provided in person and via live stream? What is your understanding of what the summit is for, who's participating, and what they're expecting to accomplish during it, and what is the importance of press access to the summit?