I'm not even sire what to make of this. On the one hand, Jim's reasoning is sound. On the other hand he and his colleagues have gotten rare promotional schwag from companies; one in particular that stands out was Jim Sterling unboxing his GTA5 goodies prior to his review, which was favorable (9/10). This isn't to imply anything, I'm simply stating what I actually saw. That's still a means of compensation, or bribery, or whatever your preferred phrasing. Anything that creates a conflict of interest, including but not exclusively monetary or collectibles, raises questions.
I don't know which you will enjoy, Brand A or Brand B, but Brand A's makers would like you to enjoy this totally not related Brand A bouquet of flowers and chocolates while you make your decision.
Same goes with advertisements and sponsorship. I remember some infamous ones here with 1UP and Gamespot, the latter especially because of the whole Gerstmann controversy.
Again, Jim's reasoning is sound, but it doesn't play out well in light of, well, how things play out. Your hands aren't exactly clean on this one, Jim, so the whole concept of playing it down comes off a bit disingenuous if not overtly hypocritical and dishonest, especially when words like "shame" are being leveled at those that do partake.
Totally respect your last point. I'm a big fan of consensus, so reading user reviews from several places to get an idea rather than a rating has worked out well enough for me. Fans will be biased because they are fans, some people simply because of a company's name, so there's a lot not to rely on out there.