You're an idiot.

Your dumb!

If one accepts flawed definitions of terms of "news" and "rights," then they may accept flawed arguments based on them. "News," beyond "current events" is whatever people don't know that some find to be of interest.  And news takes various forms, which is why op-ed reporters sign pieces based on opinions gathered from unidentified sources, and why the New York Times deals with Apple, Inc. coverage differently from 9 to 5 Mac.

If you find evidence (or, as far you can determine, credible rumors) of a terrorist plot, or that a politician is planning to introduce a bill to do something you regard as incredibly cool OR stupid,  that's "news," or at least part of "journalism" even though the "event" hasn't (and hopefully won't) happened yet, and may or may not personally effect you in the short or long run.  Many journalistic careers have been built on a network of confidential sources whose natterings may qualify as "gossip" or "rumors," but nonetheless capture the eyeballs of readers trying to understand the world around them, especially to the extent the gossip's later substantiated as fact.

As for our "right to know," you seem to be saying that it's limited to things someone (God?) thinks we Ought to know or Need to know.  I suggest you brush up on the bill of rights, especially that one about freedom of the press. 

And when you haul out an ultimate justification like people don't have the right to know things where the knowledge might cause "harm to others," clearly there is a line here, and a thorny one to be constantly re-examined.  If a WWII soldier had "loose lips," one would hope that an American or British reporter would not have filed a story nor his/her published vetted printing the details of the D-Day invasion in advance.  Keeping them secret, on the other hand, plainly "caused harm" to thousands of German soldiers and the Nazi regime.  On the other hand, it's currently a big issue as to whether we have rights to see the video tapes of CIA interrogations, which some ardently see as their right to know and others equally ardently think revealing would hamper our ability to keep our own soldiers, citizens and country from "being harmed."

But saying that the Mac rumor press (which keeps interest in upcoming Apple products at a fever pitch, much to Apple's advantage) might (by occasional overdisclosure) harm Apple's profits, and therefore their stockholders and employees by causing more sales to accrue to MS or Nokia or Google, etc. since they'll have a "heads up" is a giant stretch of "the right to secrecy," if there even is such a right that extends beyond their patents, trademarks and copyrights, and right to be free of unlawful trespass of their property and internal documents.  However, Apple clearly does have the right to fire employees they can show have violated their non-disclosure policies.  Those policies are their choice for whatever reasons they have them.

Coca-Cola, for example, has never patented their (changing) recipe for Coke (assuming for the sake of argument that a recipe is patentable), preferring to believe they can keep it secret in a vault forever, whereas they would have to disclose much in their patent and it would expire at some point.  But if the secret sauce ever is disclosed without being stolen, then CC, by keeping the formula proprietary and otherwise unprotected, has no legal recourse against the discloser nor against anyone reading the info who decides to start making Okay Cola.

However, we do agree that Apple comes off as the threatening bully in this particular contretemps.