Therefore topics such as private members' clubs are to be considered fair game for The Guardian as its the sort of place their readership would not be seen dead.
I would suggest that the truth is somewhere half-way between two sides of the proverbial coin.
There are some clubs that do indeed have a bit of a reputation. The Carlton Club mentioned in the first paragraph for example. As one Londoner put it to me in relation to the alleged Pincher incident, "if it was bad enough to raise eyebrows at the Carlton Club, it must have been bad".
Moving more to the other side of the coin, the Reform Club also mentioned in the article is not particularly controversial. Sure some of its ways may be old-fashioned my modern standards (e.g. wearing of ties by gentlemen is NOT optional). However for the non-Londoner for example, membership does have its benefits in that they have a small number of accommodation rooms available at a nightly rate that you would be hard pushed to find in such a central location, especially during peak season.
Finally, firmly on the other side of the coin are those clubs that try to scrape by a living by catering for pursuits that are rather more rarified in the modern age. For example, anyone who's anyone in the Bridge world will know of the Portland Club, the main parameter for membership there being a (very!) decent Bridge player (a fact that will need to be vouched for by your proposer and seconder). You won't find any debauchery at the Portland Club, its a serious club for serious people !
Other examples exist, but point being to take The Guardian's opinion on such matters with a pinch of salt.