How Apple’s ‘Blacklist’ Manipulates the Press

What list is MG Siegler on?

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.

Tries to compare Apple's behaviour to McCarthyism. Hilarious really, the kind of paranoid, whining nonsense that is only taken seriously by witless Apple haters, the sort that downvoted you without comment, presumably.

>> "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.

Public perception is influenced by the first reviews published on a new product. If you give a few known friendly writers early access, there will be a few days of nothing but positive reporting. Mainstream media will then pick this up as "overwhelmingly positive" response to the new thing.

Of course Apple has the right to behave like this. Nevertheless, it's good for consumers to know that the early reviews are carefully shaped, so if you want a balanced picture, you need to wait until after the public release.