Ultimately, this all shows that all the reviewers are in bed with
the manafacturers to some degree.
In the sense that you can't review cameras unless cameras are made by someone, then, yes, we're all in the same bed. But it's a big bed, and only a few are sleeping together in it ;
)
Having been involved with media ethics for over thirty years, I think you're painting with only a couple of colors. There are far more than three choices here.
1) Hold back on reviews until problems are addressed, or the
manafacturer "blesses" the review (Phil)
Phil said nothing of the sort. You have two independent clauses there, and they are not the same thing, nor are they what Phil said. Phil said he noticed the problem in casual use of the product while getting familiar with it before he started his testing. He has now chosen to not begin actual testing until the manufacturer makes a change to the product. And that has nothing to do with "blesses the review."
The lesson?.. none can be fully trusted, and we need to know that.
What's the old political phrase, "trust but verify"? I'm not exactly sure what it is you're "trusting," though. There is a difference between an anecdotal comment like "best camera ever" and an objective test result of 67 lppm on an MTF test. To trust the former you'd have to established that the person making the comment has both the ability to make such a comment (e.g. have they tested all cameras?) and the integrity necessary for you to rely upon it. To trust the latter, you need to know that the testing is done with some rigor and consistency. Phil falls into the latter category, and given that I've done many of the same tests he has and come up with the same results, I think I can vouch for his rigor and consistency.
While Phil's mode of operation seems to be OK with some, I still
see problems with the idea of sitting on your news when there is
such excitement about a camera.
What news is that? Phil made a news post about the problems when he got a response from Leica. Until he got a response, how would he have been able to tell whether the issue he saw was with his single sample or all product made? One problem with the Internet is that some feel that everything should be instantaneous. From what I can see, Phil did the right thing. He sought and got an official statement and published it as news once he had it.
Letting hundreds of people who
visit your site order a camera you know has issues is still
reprehensible to me.
Sorry, but publishing is about getting the balance right, and that doesn't often happen at warp speed. Let's change things just a bit. Let's say that Phil's sample and only his sample was defective in the same way. Does he issue a news story that says "The M8 I'm getting ready to test is defective?" No, he doesn't. He reports his problem to the manufacturer and asks for a response or explanation (or another sample). Based upon the response he gets, he makes a decision about what to do next. As far as I can tell, Phil acted in a timely way while balancing the needs of his readers against fairness to manufacturers.
As to people ordering a camera the day it appears, the old tech adage applies: live on the bleeding edge, get cut on the bleeding edge. Complex tech products have a long history of having issues out the gate. Product cycles have gotten so short that it's a rare product that comes out with serial number 0001 being perfect. As far as I can tell, there's no one on the planet that absolutely had to have an M8 on day one or else they would lose their job or die. Balance. It's important to get right, both in reviewing and in life.
--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com 
