There are so many lines that can be crossed that are of benefit to either or both sides, as well as beneficial to the larger readership/potential buyers at large. It does not seem like such a big deal for those reviewing or blogging about gear to be upfront if there has been any sort of consideration given, directly measurable or not. If the OEM is looking for only favorable press and a positive review, they have a lot more means to influence reviewers/writers than not. That is sort of business as is and many readers understand that. They eventually "vote" by not reading the blogs and reviews that do not interest them. The harder part is the more unknowing public that go look at a review to help them in the decision process, and may not have access to the gear to make the same sort of evaluations. I know that I have told many folks that have been interested in some camera or lens to go to some sites, read the reviews, and that has helped them narrow things down sometimes. That is sort of the point. For folks that have a lot of familiarity with gear, they can usually quickly read through the BS of the reviewer or blogger, but for a lot more folks that do not have that sort of knowledge, they can be more easily swayed or even duped into leaning toward one type of gear over another. Let's face it, the issue is mostly about ethics, which is merely another word in the language, not something they ever care as much about. My father used to tell me that the only thing you take to your grave is your name/reputation. My rebellious/flippant reply used to be but then you are dead so what does it matter. I quickly learned that it is far, far better to be open and honest if you are going to weigh in on something, as trust is what will carry you through good times and bad. Once you lose that trust, as many bloggers do routinely, it is hard to regain. Think of all the heat Leica has taken for the slippage of trust in its products over the past several years. They are killing themselves to regain that among loyal followers as well as to gain new customers. How much is that cost over time, versus being more open and honest from the start? Not saying they are hiding anything, but Leica could also have publicly said they were inviting a bunch of folks on a junket to check out the new gear, and they were both proud of the gear, and hoped others would appreciate it also. Instead, we get NDAs, some subtle and direct influence for reviewers to publish the good points and maybe glide past some of the less stellar points. Not a way to win my trust.
This is not to rail at Leica, or any reviewer in particular. I stopped reading many reviews where I know the reviewer was receiving something for a more positive consideration to write more about only the good. I still like reading what folks have to say and seeing what things look like, but I learned long ago that one has to take it with lots of grains of salt....some more than others, and then do your own testing if you can. That last part is the most difficult for the less skilled, as 20 minutes in a camera shop with a hovering and somewhat pushy salesperson is not the best evaluation setting.
Just a long way of saying that I would much rather see full disclosure of benefits, considerations, etc., and then an honest evaluation, warts and all. Hoping the "hit their wallet" approach gets the attention of the less scrupulous, but I am still too cynical to believe this will straighten things out.
LJ