Summary¶
documented Access control operates by membership rather than by content: a source institution admits only club members to its press conferences, and non-members — magazines, smaller papers, freelancers, foreign press — are excluded regardless of what they would ask.1 documented RSF notes that while some clubs (courts, prosecutors' offices, health ministry) now admit freelancers and alternative outlets, access to ministerial and senior-official briefings "is often restricted to club members only."2
Why it works better than censorship¶
inferred Censorship is visible and provokes a rights argument; exclusion is administrative and provokes nothing. It also produces the outcome without anyone having to decide it: a non-member outlet simply cannot report what it did not hear, and cannot be accused of being suppressed.3 What would test this: compare the first published account of a policy decision across member and non-member outlets over a sample of decisions; a consistent lag in non-member coverage would confirm the mechanism.
The secondary effects¶
documented Clubs also make reporting agreements (blackboard agreements) that set publication timing, and produce note-swapping that homogenises content across outlets.13 documented Clubs have imposed sanctions on members for publishing material a source wanted withheld.1 inferred Together these mean the mechanism shapes not only who reports but how identically they report — which is why "bias" accusations can land on the entire legacy press at once rather than on one outlet.