Some of our friends here deserve credit for putting a little daylight on this issue. I'd never thought about it deeply, but when you analyze the circumstances, it seems that the big publications operate with a very odd economic model. The defenders point out that reviewers often get paid nearly nothing by the publications. But people don't usually work for nothing. So, they are compensated by manufacturers through what are essentially gifts of equipment, mischaracterized as long-term loans, or the ability to buy at deeply discounted prices not available to plebeian consumers. The rub is that they are compensated by manufacturers to write purportedly objective "reviews" of the products of those very manufacturers or their competitors, an obvious conflict of interest.
Short of changing these practices, the next best solution, as Michael suggests, would be full disclosure. The publications could diffuse the issue by simply putting a quarter page disclosure on the last page of each edition that says these reviewers received accommodations from these vendors. Subscribers could then decide for themselves whether that impacts the credibility of a review armed with all the relevant information. What's wrong with that? This would cost nothing, enhance their credibility and put to rest an issue they know is a problem. Maybe their defenders can tell us why they don't adopt the transparent approach-doesn't make sense to me.
.