Confused

For people who think you might be 'bought', you're already putting up the information on who provides travel assistance for LWN editors. So (obviously, I might add) that was not my concern or implication.

My concern is that the style of reporting practiced and defended by articles such as this (i.e. only summarizing what was said, refusing to check facts as common practice (e.g. first footnote here and subsequent reply), choosing not to point out items which are clearly left off the agenda) is a disservice to LWN as a subscriber-oriented site.

Given that LWN (apparently; I honestly apologize if I have gotten the wrong impression from the comments by the staff) will dutifully reproduce the presentations and discussions at an event for its (primarily developer) audience, it makes sense to want to know which organizations want to promote which events to this audience.

If you do not want to provide such information that is your prerogative (though it'd be helpful if we knew why). In my eyes, the situation is analogous to the transparency you currently practice re: travel sponsoring. Admittedly, "LWN attended this event on the invitation and sponsoring of Org X" might not sound great (though if it doesn't sound good to your ears, you might stop and consider why). But, as you say, 20 years of history assures us of the good faith efforts of the LWN editors.

What is also assured though, is that bias in reporting is not only a matter of personal integrity. If I may quote another comment out of context:

People are prone to bias. Even the best of people. They may not even be aware of it themselves. The way these biases work is that professionals can convince themselves they are doing the right thing as part of it. You need to openly acknowledge interests that might bias things (as is best practice in the medical world, e.g.) to have a hope of countering it. And generally be systematic about counter-balancing self-interest-bias - cause humans _are_ very prone to it.

With that in mind, I hope that you (or any other editor at LWN) no longer feel you have a reason to be offended. And perhaps that you'll reconsider the suggestion re: increased transparency.