Journalism, for the most part, has always been a commercial venture; golf magazines are no different in that regard. My father was a newspaper writer and editor; advertisers paid our mortgage, not the quarter that a paper cost. That didn't mean that he was writing or printing things that made the advertisers happy for the purpose of making the advertisers happy. Taking that view of what a journalist in has written in ANY publication if you happen to disagree with it is just Conspiracy Theory 101. Arguments either stand or fall on their own logic and the evidence, I've found.
As for Nicklaus, if there is another person in the history of the game that has done more to make golf slower and more expensive AND more difficult through his own GCA, I can't come up with a name. His diatribes on length mean nothing to me; nobody has built more golf courses where length off the tee was necessary in order to be able to hit a second shot that would work. I don't enjoy his golf courses in most cases for exactly that reason. If that's painting him with a broad brush, so be it, but at 67 now, I NEED good equipment and the modern ball to play HIS golf courses, even from 6000 yards or less.
In his day, Nicklaus dominated IN PART because he could hit the ball 300 yards when he needed/wanted to, and almost nobody else could. Hell, he hit it through the green on 18 at the Old Course a half century ago! If someone could provide a quote from JN from THOSE days in which he says that HIS length was a problem and that the ball was going too far, I'd just love to read that. But for what amounts to a deathbed conversion now that a LOT of players for a LOT or reasons, including but not limited to, the golf ball, can hit it 300+ is just about the most meaningless thing I can think of.