The OP is flat out wrong about the better internet reviewers. Kmart gear, really? Have you seen Jay's Audio equipment? Jay has spent more on room acoustics than most magazine reviewers paid for their reference gear. I would listen to the better internet reviewers over ANY of the magazine reviewers for a few reasons.
1) When was the last time you saw a negative review of any piece of equipment in a magazine review? Never (except the for the botched Totem review done by a magazine 10-15 years ago). Why did a magazine have to add a column in their Axpona review last year that was on the worst sounding rooms? It's because a few of the internet reviewers already made those claims months earlier so they didn't want to look bad. BTW:a couple of those rooms had a couple hundred thousands of $$$ worth of equipment that this magazine just gave glowing reviews on the month before.
2) Most magazine reviewers rooms are terrible, no acoustic treatment, no special speaker positioning because of tight quarters, and even 1 magazine reviewers positioned the equipment in the corner because of space issues. Most don't even have dedicated rooms.
3) The OP claims the YT reviewers get paid for each review. Really, you know that for a fact? Can you say the same about a magazine review? How about selling ad space? How about giving the reviewer huge discounts for the gear if they want to purchase it? Aren't these incentives? Would a manufacturer keep buying ad space if they keep getting negative reviews? Maybe their is a coincidence why there are no negative reviews.
In all other magazine reviews of other products: cars, stoves, refrigerators, you name it, there is only 1 product that is the best, the others come in 2nd, 3rd, on down. Never will you see this in a magazine review. What ever product they are reviewing, its the best of the best.