Is it even possible for a reviewer to be unbiased?

What prompted this train of thought is a conversation that John and I had about a magazine that "reviewed" speakers made by a company that the editor owned part of. It was an obvious conflict of interest, and when exposed, gave a distinct impression of foul play.

But after thinking about it, they all support themselves with advertising revenues, so they all have a conflict of interest. They all have a stake in the companies they review. The only exception I can think of is Consumer Reports.

So I ask again,

Is there such a thing as an honest review?

I think Anthony Cordesman was an honest broker (is he still reviewing anywhere?) and I'm certain J. Gordon Holt was never a sell out.

Cordesman never seemed to give a damn what anybody thought, and I never read a fawning, over-the-top review by him.

I also think Holt's record speaks for itself - he'd rather go out of business than pander to anybody.

But two out of hundreds is not a good record.

Our recent conversation made me ponder this question. I haven't ever gotten very involved with reveiwers, so I'm pretty naive about the publications industry, but I'm geting more aquainted with it every day. What I've seen hasn't been particularly pretty. It seems to me the best thing to do is to listen to products, let them speak for themselves. But there are a lot of reviewers, magazines and E-Zines, and most if not all receive funding through advertisements. That makes me concerned that their reviews might be impossibly biased.