Well, this thread has sort of devolved into a pissing contest... but getting back to Ron's original point:
I used to read TAS, Stereophile, etc. back in the 1980's to early 1990's. It was fun, informative, but also something I just never thought of as objective in the sense that say science journals attempt to be.
All humans have biases. We cannot escape them. That is why double-blind protocols were invented, why science papers get refereed blind, etc.
Is someone who buys a piece of gear less biased than one who is long-term loaned a piece of gear? I doubt it.
And of course the questions Ron raises leads to the bigger question: why bother with these old school outlets anymore? Neither TAS nor Stereophile nor any others are serious academic journals. They are, and always were, entertainment. (Someone mentioned Nelson Pass looking on this industry as such, yes?)
And of course the new school is video. People have already brought up Youtube. I'd rather watch a person's response to a piece of gear, and have them describe their experience, than read a story.
Of course there are problems with Youtube reviewers - just like with old-school reviewers. Someone here brought up Jay from Jay's Audio Lab. His channel is a channel for conspicuous consumption, a very American thing. I do not take his opinion highly, and his obsession with outrageously priced power cables ought to be a warning to anyone.
But there are other Youtubers out there who clearly know more. Guttenberg is clear that he gets loaner gear (and people raise that as an issue in comment to his videos.) Yet I still find his discussions often interesting. Audiophile Junkie brings videos of very high end products but he does not pretend to be a reviewer.
And we have plenty of online forums such as this one. Our fellow humans who go to the effort to post their own experiences are valuable. Their owner-biases are no doubt there, but don't we all expect that?