I like Michael Arrington's perspective on this (I can't believe I just typed that) - which is there really is no such thing as objectivity, and the best a reader can hope for is as much transparency as possible. I agree, that a lot of these "journalists" rely on their sources for access, and don't want to burn their bridges, so they may give a somewhat biased report (in return for future access). There are also other biases, like David Pogues writing the "Missing Manual" series, while at the same time providing a supposedly unbiased review of the devices he is writing manuals for. I love Pogues Reviews - I just wish he was a little more aggressively transparent when he writes a review for something that he might be gaining financially from.
But, at the very least, most people know where Pogue, Gruber, Siegler are coming from - so we go to them when we want the "Pro-Apple" perspective. The sad thing is how rarely fans of the Apple Aesthetic are willing to go read the "Anti-Apple" perspective (Is there such a source? ) And what about the Objective review? Mossberg has been panning Apple quite a bit recently - maybe he's the objective reviewer...
But, at the very least, most people know where Pogue, Gruber, Siegler are coming from - so we go to them when we want the "Pro-Apple" perspective. The sad thing is how rarely fans of the Apple Aesthetic are willing to go read the "Anti-Apple" perspective (Is there such a source? ) And what about the Objective review? Mossberg has been panning Apple quite a bit recently - maybe he's the objective reviewer...