I don't see where the subjective parts are - this was simply pulling together some publicly available comments with a helpful and considered analysis of the tradeoffs of the 'RHEL rebuild' approach used by CentOS. I don't agree that LWN should have to interview people on articles like this - maybe a good idea as a followup, but the CentOS team were blogging publicly anyway so I don't see the need.
It was pretty clear from the article and the links that CentOS itself was not crumbling, but did go through a shaky patch that might have required a new website and that users change their repository pointers. If LWN can't report and analyse events like this, what can it cover?
There was some data about CentOS being slower than RHEL in delivering updates - since it depends entirely on RHEL updates this can hardly be a surprise, but it's useful to have this data compiled.
People seem upset by an implicit criticism of CentOS in the article, but it was simply looking at the drawbacks of a community run project, and highlighting some of the weaknesses in project organisation that it seems are being rapidly fixed.