Yes. Though I don't want to have to go digging for evidence right now, I'm pretty sure many resistance faithful who were on-board in the first few years remember the roasting we gave them over this subject. Unless, of course, the resistance is now developing it's own convenient "memory holes" in imitation of the accordistas we disdained.
*reposted since it seems my original reply disappeared

Don't worry about digging for evidence. I believe you. I wasn't aware of the Resistance in the earlier years. It's unfortunate that there are those who are developing convenient 'memory holes,' though maybe some of those who are complaining about the lack of recorded sermons are not part of or supportive of the Resistance anyway.

Bishops and priests should not be afraid to have themselves recorded.
The world and faithful NEED transparency.
That said, maybe Bp. Zendejas doesn't want it because of what happened to Bp. W regarding the h0Ɩ0cαųst? Just thinking out loud...

When did Bp. Z start asking not to be recorded? Did he used to allow recordings?

I have told this story before, but it is a direct answer to your question:

The first time Fr. Zendejas came to Minnesota for Mass was in February 2015.

My house was the Mass venue.

I invited some of the local Pfeifferites, but when they reported it back to Fr. Pfeiffer, the latter sent Fr. Hewko (good cop) up here a few days later (i.e., on the scheduled day of the Mass at my house), who "conveniently" scheduled Masses at the two Pfeifferite chapels immediately before and after our scheduled Mass time.

In other words, those who had planned on attending were now put in the position of having to omit attending Fr. Hewko's Mass (which would allow Fr. Pfeiffer to say, "Well it looks like you don't need me in Minnesota..."), so they all went.

But about the time our Mass had ended, there was knocking on the door, and when I answered, it was 3-4 men from the Pfeiffer chapel.

I invited them in.

As soon as they were introduced to Fr. Zendejas, one of them pulled out a tape recorder with one hand, and a pre-printed questionaire in the other (the handiwork of Fr. Hewko; this questionaire was later published on Cor Mariae and other Pfeifferian sites).

Fr. Zendejas immediately replied "no recorder."

The Pfeifferians complied, but continued with their questions.

A few minutes into it, we were all in a huge argument.

It was pretty obvious that they wanted to record the conversation in order to pick it apart, and use it in the war against +BW (i.e., the November/2014 defection of the New Jersey and Connecticut chapels was fresh in the background, and the war was in full swing).

Someone might ask themselves, "Well, why should Fr. Zendejas have had to worry about his sermons being picked apart, if all his answers would have been traditional in the line of Lefebvre?"

If Fr. Zendejas had been a native English speaker, I myself might have agreed with that question.

But he is not, and anyone who has conversed with him knows his English is poor.

When I speak with him on the phone, I only get about 75% of what he is saying (and I talk to him frequently, and am used to his accent).

Around the same time, there was a Blue Paper article the bishop had written, which received a particularly diligent parsing by The Recusant and other Pfeifferites.  Fr. Zendejas had made some statement about the post-conciliar reforms, which the Pfeifferites had rended into "the problems are not with the Council itself, but only with the post-conciliar reforms."

I think these two events were not too far apart from each other in time, and it was then that Fr. Zendejas decided, "OK, my English is not good enough to write or speak, without making inadvertent mistakes; better I don't do this anymore."

On the other hand, I noticed Bishop Zendejas recently published a sermon he gave last month in Avrille.  Maybe now that his enemies have largely dissolved into home-alone, Moranists and Hewkonians, he is willing to risk speaking publicly again (i.e., there really isn't much opposition to him left in the wake of the Boston meltdown).

In any case, this is my best guess as to why he has been reticent until now to say or write much publicly.

As for secretive, that is a load of hogwash.

Bp. Z is not secretive. He says public Masses in at least a half-dozen locations.

It was Bp Z who wanted the group we have to have public Masses, just to support this 

Well, honestly, there could be reasons of prudence here.  At the end of the day, you can never guarantee what's going to come out of any given priest's mouth.  He might slip up and say something imprudent or stupid, and or something that might reflect badly on the Society.  I mean, you can never know if some priest might crack and claim from the pulpit that the h0Ɩ0cαųst was grossly exaggerated, and this might reflect badly on the Society.  

But there is some truth to that, that people will smear the Society for something that might have just slipped out of a single priest's mouth.

Even before Vatican II, the bishops generally forbade most priests from speaking to the media, but only designated priests who were trusted and/or trained ... lest something end up being said that reflects badly on the Church.

Now, this is true of a group.

What if a priest, for instance, thinks that he's not very talented at giving sermons and just doesn't want them floating out there, or is otherwise a bit camera shy.  I know people who hate having their picture taken because they feel that they are not very photogenic.  Similarly, I could see a priest being camera-shy or audio-shy, or whatever.  Maybe they don't think their voices sounds very good.

Or, in general, have you never heard of people who are a little shy?  Although I have never personally met +Zendejas, I strongly suspect that he's on the shy side, just looking at him.

Also, have you never seen someone being brutalized after having something they said taken out of context?

I find this thread interesting.  I've seen some awful hatchet jobs on recordings of priests and bishops and politicians by people of intolerance and biased opinions blowing things way out of proportion and have been sad about that.   I am not surprised that any person refuses to go on the record.  I am not surprised that any person (even myself right now) chooses to make a comment on a forum without being fully identified to all and sundry.

It is usually the case that I react against or push-back such attacks by taking positive towards the victim of the unwarranted war of words. 

That is not to say that the criticism or the highlighting of error using any recorded medium is wrong but it is the unbalanced over-reaction that draws my ire.

It's hard for me to even relate to this issue.  There aren't many of us who have access to more than one certainly valid priest.  There are probably those who have none.

I agree, Mater-D.  If you want to broadcast Bishop Z's sermons, then go record him on your iphone like the paparazzi.  He has no moral imperative to "live stream" anything.  His job is to teach the faith to those around him.  No one NEEDS Bishop Z's sermons to save their soul.  Go read some good spiritual books. 
.
Maybe one day he will have an email sermon like +Williamson?  Yet even +Williamson has the time to edit and refine his emails before sending them out.  
.
Bishop Z's english is not very good.  He has already been accosted by enemies who wanted to trap him in an interview.  Are these not prudent reasons to avoid controversy and to just concentrate on what is important.  i.e. the Mass and the Faith?  I think so.

"public" has never been defined as "accessible on the internet"

Good point!

This is an example of hundreds of Catholics rejecting someone (Fr. Pfeiffer) but completely accepting certain of his ideas without thinking, or letting him frame the parameters and/or the debate.

How many times has Fr. Pfeiffer equated "public" with "on the Internet"? But has anyone actually stopped and thought about that? Are the two things really equivalent?

Can we really say that this or that great saint (priest or bishop) would have DEFINITELY had all his sermons on Youtube? We could debate it, but no one can say for sure.

There is no law that says we have to embrace the Internet. To find a spouse, for finance, shopping, information, socialization, sermons, or anything else.


What's next? Saying that Catholics without a Tridentine Mass option every Sunday are obligated under pain of mortal sin to "attend" an online Mass? 

Here is my point: Catholics are allowed to reject the Internet for any or all of the things that it offers (including the services I listed above).