Doubter wrote: there is no “right” to enter the building whether you were invited or not.
You have read *waaayyy* too much into the reporter's question.
I understand your assertion but you are off-point.
Neither the reporter or anyone here in this thread said anything about her (or anyone) having a *right* to enter. She was NOT asserting her right.
She merely inquired as to the reason why she was given an invitation [as extended to the public with weeks of distribution of tracts throughout the area] and then denied assess when she arrived. It was a good question that got a snide and condescending reply. Not an answer to 'why'. Just a flippant reply as if he was brushing dandruff off his shoulder.
Why invite the public and then refuse them entrance simply because they spoke with a protester or two?
Fair and balanced reporting always seeks input and comments from both sides of a story. It is very common to see a news article say something like: The [newspaper] reached out to so-and-so-opposite-party but they have not responded our request for comment.
That denial of access on the basis of attempting to be balanced and listen to both sides of a story - which normal people should do - screams 'we have something to hide and must control all details of our actions and history'.