What's with Apple's fetish for secrecy?

Here's the deal: My friend Matthew Rothenberg of eWeek wrote a column about the decision to bar certain Macintosh e-zines from attending next week's Macworld show in New York as members of the press.

THE REASON: Those e-zines have the audacity to publish rumors about Apple. (As opposed to, say, dutifully reprinting the company's press releases.)

One of the banned sites is Scott McCarty's GraphicPower. After the Macworld PR folks disinvited him from the show, Scott got into an e-mail exchange with them (all of it duly published on his site, of course), in which he blamed his persona non grata status not on the flacks, but on Apple itself.

That accusation is completely believable, given Apple's fetish for secrecy, which in turn is directly related to Steve's passion for controlling information. Punishing rumormongers is the sort of thing Apple would like to do, given the chance.

OF COURSE, if sites that publish Apple rumors aren't eligible to attend Macworld, why does Apple want me there so badly? (And, believe me, they do.) ZDNet and CNET (our corporate parent) certainly publish a fair number of rumors ourselves.

I suspect if Apple thought they could get away with barring big sites like ours too, they would. Ten years ago, Apple had a well-known policy of blacklisting reporters who didn't write favorably about the company or its products. That policy led to less and less coverage--which I think may well have played a part in Apple's decline in the marketplace.

It's certainly possible that the Macworld conference people (part of the IDG colossus) aren't very smart and are alienating the e-zines all by themselves, without any prompting from Apple. That's certainly what Apple insiders suggest (off-the-record). It's also in accord with my own experience. I didn't attend MacWorld for more than a decade because the show's organizers acted like it was such a big favor to give someone a press credential.

WHOEVER IS REALLY to blame here, Apple needs to turn this brouhaha into a non-issue--and fast.

First, we're talking about only a few people here--I'm not sure of the precise number, but I suspect they can be counted on the fingers of two hands. But in the Apple community, these people are opinion leaders. As for the accusation that their sites specialize in rumors: Given Jobs's tight grip on information, rumors are often all the Mac community has to talk about.

Second, even if Steve (or Apple) had nothing to do with barring these folks, the episode fits so well with Apple's corporate character that they'll still get tarred by it. He (or the company) could do the right thing and reverse the decision, thus erasing another blot on his (and his company's) reputation.

I've organized conferences in the past. Inviting members of the media actually cost me $500-a-seat out-of-pocket. But I still invited as many as I possibly could, because the demonstrators appreciated the opportunity to get in front of anyone who might write about them. The media were as important to many of my speakers and demonstrators as the paying audience.

MACWORLD, by contrast, incurs essentially no incremental cost when it invites media people. I suspect a poll of all the exhibitors at Macworld would find these rumormongers most welcome. In this economy, barring any legitimate media makes no sense at all.

Besides, anyone it doesn't invite can still get in for a $15 "exhibits only" pass. Once inside, they'll doubtless be able to sneak into the press area. So I'm not sure exactly what the Macworld people and/or Apple hope to accomplish, besides snubbing people who consider themselves to be Apple's supporters and friends

Now, a case can be made that these Web sites aren't "legitimate" media. And if we were talking about a big show like Comdex or CES, I'd probably agree. But Macworld (pardon the pun) is different. As Apple's market share has contracted, so have the number of publications--both online and off--that cover the company. But there's still a flourishing online community of people who write about the Mac more for love than money. At least some of those people are a legitimate part of the Macintosh media.

I think those of us who are considered "legit" by Apple and Macworld should support these e-zines, on the grounds that merely printing rumors should not exclude them from fair treatment.

I'm almost tempted to hire some of these folks as AnchorDesk correspondents at the show and see what Apple--and Macworld--will do. Hmmm...

What do you think? Should Apple admit the rumormongers? TalkBack to me below.