If you want, sure. Whatever floats your boat.

An important difference here is that I try to have useful profiles pretty much anywhere I write. Whereas I had to look this information up specifically because UnHerd is studiously vague about all the things I mentioned: https://unherd.com/about-unherd/

I think the way you connected Unherd with Nigel Farage is a pinpointed, ill-intentioned way of disparaging a site and I think if you want to be honest, you know that's why you did it. It is pretty normal not to broadcast your source of funding for a business.

It is quite normal for journalists to disclose conflicts of interest, which especially includes ownership/funding. For example, The Economist: https://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/owners...

Or Pro Publica: https://www.propublica.org/supporters

The Washington Post gives their whole ownership history, including Jeff Bezos's purchase of it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/company-history/

That these folks aren't so forthright should concern anybody. And why should mentioning Farage be seen as disparaging by UnHerd's Daddy Warbucks? He liked the guy enough to put £10 million into getting him and others on the air, so I presume he's proud of the association. It's true I don't like Farage or his politics, but that doesn't oblige me to hide the name of the biggest star of the network that is the other major media effort of UnHerd's funder.

> It is pretty normal not to broadcast your source of funding for a business.

Not only is it extremely normal, but it's also a time honored tradition in good journalism and civic mindedness. In another era we called it "following the money."

If you were to write on religion, would you find it reasonable if the religious were to simply dismiss any argument you made, no matter how correct or well constructed, simply due to your atheism?

Generally when I write on religion, I do make that clear. If some want to dismiss my views because of that, that's their choice. I certainly dismiss a lot of what religious people say, so I can hardly call it unfair.

In a world where everyone operated as you do, I don't think there would be much point in writing, as everyone who reads what you have to say will already agree with you.

Not at all. I have plenty of good dialog with people of goodwill that I disagree with. And I have time for that because I don't waste a lot of time on people who are engaging in motivated reasoning, propaganda, suppressing cognitive dissonance, disinformation, and the like.

And I'm sure you do the same. How much time do you spend in open-minded conversation with Flat Earthers or UFO cultists or Q adherents or telemarketers? I don't think there's much point in talking with people who aren't thoughtful, sincere, and at least self-critical enough to have their acts together. But there are plenty of people who qualify.