Personally, I think the analogy/comparison to Conde Nast Traveler as a role model is a good one.

Constructive criticism is useful and frequently productive. One has to be listened to in order to be effective, however, which is why one must not be perceived as biased one way or another if one is to maintain credibility (and usefulness). Thus, one must neither be a "untied.com" nor a "united.com" (if you get my drift). And unless one is independently wealthy (or independently funded) one has to have income to eat (and pay the help).

Still, I would suggest that allowing this bulletin board to be a sort of "Hyde Park" where content is not censored unless unlawful or obscene would not (should not?) be inconsistent with maintaining a stance somewhere between sycophancy and sharp sticks in the eye.