What a ridiculous proposal. The reason the "major review sites" are as popular as they are is because they have a proven track record of providing useful, reasonably unbiased information about cameras to the public. When Michael or Phil or Steve criticise a camera's shortcomings, there is generally a legitimate basis for doing so, and the same is true when they praise a camera. This gives the public the basis for making a more informed buying decision, reducing the likelihood of buying something and being unhappy with it. If a particular camera ias not appropriate for the needs of a particular buyer, it is better for the buyer to choose another camera than to mistakenly buy the wrong camera and be unhappy with it and the manufacturer. The only "losers" currently are manufacturers who make a defective camera model, or fail to match the features of their cameras to the needs/wants of the intended market segment (the G7 comes to mind here). Reviewers are a good thing; the more the merrier, I say. Find a few whose criteria for review match what is important to you, and save yourself time, hassle, and money buying stuff you aren't happy with.
I like DPReview for their in-depth technical analysis, and Michael for his perspective on things like ergononics (Can I operate this camera in cold weather while wearing gloves?), performance under field conditions, and the less-tangible aspects of use. Between them, I've been happier with the $20K+ I've spent on photo gear than I would have been otherwise.
