Is this a problem? If you write articles saying that you don't like me, I probably won't send you any free stuff or invite you round to my house. They're a consumer electronics and software company, not a government department. If they don't want to talk to you or send you any free stuff, that's up to them and I'm 100% fine with that.

Why do you need to visit them or get free equipment from them to write articles anyway? Wait for it to be released to the public like everyone else.

Apple has a long history of manipulating the press in other ways too.[1][2]

So, this doesn't really surprise me.

[1]http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/apple-prs-dirty-little-secre... [2]http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/how_apple_does_contro...

He's putting himself on my blacklist by using OnSwipe. How is that shit not dead yet?

In every field there are dishonest people you want to avoid dealing with. So I'm sure every company more than about a year or two old has encountered reporters they'd never want to talk to again, beyond things like press releases that go to everyone.

Trade journo here (not tech). No need for blacklists in some/many/most segments. Upset corp. hatchetman calls publisher, says either the offending reporter goes or our ads do. I haven't seen a whole lot of publishing backbone/pushback out here lately. (Not that that's changed much.)

Flipside is fancy junketeering, with publishers letting corporations host journos for new product events or 'market updates' held in resort destinations. That's the list journos want to be on, 'but it doesn't impact our objectivity.'

I was with him on the "blacklisting people in the press is bad" thing. When he started comparing it to the red scare you really have to worry about his connection to reality.

I remember Engadget being "asked" to stop covering jailbreak-requiring iPhone apps.

Gosh. If I could laugh I would have been doubled over. Does the author really think that Apple put this much thought into not letting certain journalists into new coverage. This is pretty much a thought of a conspiracy theorist, Apple surely doesn't think about communist conspiracies from the 1940s, they merely think you're either a bad journalist or one who is consistently unfair. The detail in which the linked article puts forth is ridiculous. It's over-analysis at it's most laughable.

Now consider how the government does the same thing to the press and how it affects political coverage especially the notion that the media is a check on power.

Having working with PR departments of various companies, almost all had some sort of blacklisting/whitelisting for journalists and media outlets. Seems to be perfectly normal because the job of those departments is to influence media coverage to be positive and widespread. Working with some journalists is more effective than working with others and some have proven in the past to not be worth spending time (and money) on.

Mike Elgan concludes: "Ultimately, it’s not that big of a deal." True, but then readers should ask: Why is he writing a big column singling out Apple for this behavior? Eyeballs?

>> "If wasn’t on Apple’s “blacklist” already, this post would surely get me on it. It’s totally worth it."

Really? You make money writing about Apple and you think it would be worth it to intentionally piss them off and get blacklisted? I can understand writing a bad article about a bad product and getting blacklisted because you don't want to lie in a review but a conspiracy piece that also mentions how the Chinese government jails journalists makes you look worse than Apple. If I was in charge of giving out invites to journalists at Apple I'd exclude you, not because you wrote something negative, but because you wrote something really over the top and pretty crazy.

What list is MG Siegler on?

Reminds me of when CNET was blacklisted by Google for publishing Schmidt's personal info that was available on Google searches after he downplayed privacy.

http://boingboing.net/2009/12/09/google-ceo-says-priv.html

'He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.' - George Orwell.

If you know anything about big companies and PR, you would know that much of what he says is true. They do indeed monitor what various media outlets say and create an "enemies list" that will be starved.

Even big and influential media may not escape. Apple doesn't need to cooperate with the normal reporters on the New York Times who ask hard questions about conditions in Chinese factories, they just need to court David Pogue.

Companies do maintain black lists in the same way that Hollywood did in response to McCarthy and there is a small industry of "research" to did out info on peoples political and other activities eg raising H&S issues

The construction industry has been doing this for decades in the UK and I bet companies like walmart do it in the USA as well.

If you dont see the problem you need to read up on the industrial history of the USA

I absolutely assume any company even close to as big as Apple spends 'that much thought' on managing their PR, absolutely. I'd be shocked if they did not.

That doesn't neccesarily mean they maintain a blacklist or whatever. But 'that much thought'? Certainly. Of course they do. It's bizarre to suggest that they don't spend 'that much thought' on PR.

> Does the author really think that Apple put this much thought into not letting certain journalists into new coverage.

Techniques to control public image over social networks are getting more and more attention. For example academic papers here: [1].

Of course I don't know about Apple in particular, but really doubt that they don't look into this "just because".

[1] http://icdm2012.ua.ac.be/content/session?id=15

So, are you saying that Apple, probably one of the most secretive and PR savvy companies in the world, doesn't give much thought about its relations with the media? Really?

The article wasn't talking about a conspiracy, read it again. It's just what you said, Apple doing PR control.

If they think that criticisng Apple or its products makes someone a bad journalist or unfair and they are blacklisted, then in actuality they do care a lot about journalists.

A tech journalist is at a disadvantage with the rest if he is denied early access to products, and he won't get that unless he writes pretty things about Apple. We have a word for that: blackmail.

If there is one tech company today that is obsessed with managing its PR, from every angle, it has to be Apple. I don't find it far-fetched at all the Apple has put a lot of thought into how to get early favorable reviews from big media. It's the same reason they basically invented the modern theatrical press event: a huge part of what they sell is an image. Managing that image is paramount to their business.

"Does the author really think that Apple put this much thought into not letting certain journalists into new coverage. "

Dunno about the author, but me? Absolutely, yes.

Not just Apple either. Probably every large business with a half functioning marketing and PR operation.

Quite right as well. Its their job. Present the product in the best light possible to maximize profits of the owners or share holders. That is the purpose of business.

I make no moral judgement. Its just raw capitalism. The trick is to know this and to never accept a single source, then make a judgement.