Well, here's my opinion FWIW. Let's take your post a paragraph at a time.
In your first paragraph you state:
"at the risk of being simplistic, i would say there are two broad categories of reviewing--criticism and reporting and the connotations of subjectivity and objectivity."
The two categories are not mutually exclusive. Subjective oriented reviews throw in a few objective measurements. Objective oriented reviews offer some personal opinon. So to that extent it is a bit of a simplistic categorization. However, for the purposes of discussing and contrasting the underlying, preferred approach of each side, I think that it is a fair generalization.
In your second paragraph you state:
"a reviewer can present an opinion of a component,providing evidence from listening, as to its quality relative to other compoents of the same class and then express a preference for that component relative to other components of the same class, often using ornate phrases."
I think that this is well stated as to the approach of the subjectivist oriented reviews. I'm a bit uncomfortable with your use of the phrase "ornate phrases". It sounds somewhat pejorative. "Ornate phrases" reflects, in part, the individual writing style of the author. It gives some character to the review. "Ornate phrases" also reflects the terminology which has developed in the audiophile world. The words and phrases have specific meanings which provide a benchmark in conveying information. Just as oenophiles talk about "nose" and "bouquet" in talking about wine, audiophiles talk about "soundstage" and "image". By the way, in the July, August and September, 1993, issues of Stereophile, there is a three part article written by J. Gordon Holt, in which he discusses subjectivist review terminology. An extensive glossary of subjectivist terms is also provided. It's quite interesting. The subjectivist terms have objective meanings.
In your third paragraph you state:
"alternatively a reviewer can describe his perceptions without using adjectives, not indicating a preference in an attempt to be factual. the idea is not to influence the reader by using words which may have a positive or negative valence associated with them."
As a generality to contrast with the first approach to reviewing, I think this is a reasonable statement. However, I find that even the most objectivist review has an unstated intent to influence. Here is the unstated opinion: "This amp measures the same, therefore has to sound identical, and since it's cheaper, you should buy this one".
Now, in comparing the two general categories of review, I definitely prefer the first, the subjectivist. Here is why. If an objectivist review provides only facts, why would I read it, unless I have no other source of the facts? I can get all the facts and specs I need from the manufacturer's website. A totally objective review serves no purpose if I otherwise have access to the facts. There is no value added in terms of information. Why would I buy it? (Attention advetisers.)It also has no life or personality. It is sterile. It is as interesting as reading a street sign. A subjectivist review, on the other hand, actually takes a stand. It is an opinion. I may like the opinion, or I may not. I may agree with it, or I may not. I may even get quite worked up about it. It arouses passion and subsequent debate and discussion, which is good. It has life and it is interesting. I'll buy it to see what so and so is saying about such and such. (Attention advertisers again.)It allows for a magazine or a review to have character, just as a newspaper has character because of its editorials. If you want to know what the conservative or liberal viewpoint is on a certain issue, you know what newspaper or editorial writers to look to. So too with subjectivist reviews. And just because somebody attempts to directly influence me doesn't mean that they will succeed. Maybe they will or maybe they won't. But they got me thinking and they are forcing me to use my brain to think about the issues. Would you buy a newspaper that had no editorials, if there was another one that did?
In your fourth paragraph you state:
"much of today's reviewing is what i would call advocacy reviewing. there are very few instances where reviewers try to strictly inform without influencing."
I agree with this, but not for the reason that you might have expected. Even though there are two discernible camps, as I stated above, the objectivists try to influence just as much as the subjectivists. It's all advocacy. However, one group do it with a review that's more interesting to read.
