This is one of the worst arguments I've read. At least pick a comparison where the same reviewer reviewed the same game.

Yes. They became journalists to play more games than what they can afford.

Yes but they should be. Being a journalist does not necessarily mean being the best, if they were the best they'd probably be playing in tournaments and winning. They are meant to be the indication of 'everyman' and therefore have to play a game as though they are. Which means giving reviews as appropriate.

Some are poor gamers, some are good, most are average ones, but the average is perceived as poorer than in the past because now they have a lot less time to play a game and write a review than in the past, when paper magazines were bigger than now and they had a whole month between each issue. Low average scores, though, don't mean a gaming journalist is bad, actually just the opposite. A gaming journalist MUST be strict and even harsh, otherwise maybe fanboys will be pleased, but all the other gamers will be pissed off if a review too generous made them buy a bad game or simply one they don't like.