Rob,
I would agree that rarely if ever do you see a negative review of a golf course in a magazine; but...the only courses that get reviewed are typically at least decent. They aren't reviewing some dog track; and although it may not be great it is often not pure crap.
Kenny - You are correct and I think this is where things get tricky - If you are out reviewing a course that is on, for example, The Golf Digest Top 100 Publics in America (or something), it is probably a "good" course, but what if there are 3 or 4 holes with glaring mistakes in your opinion as an author, do you say anything?
I think most of the golf mags, like the wine mags (aside from Parkers), tread very carefully around the negative so they do not compromise ad dollars which means the audience has to read between the lines to get the "real" story. We always hear about "the signature hole", "the great stretch of holes", etc. Rarely do you read about the hole on the front and back that are clearly "weak sisters".
Darius Oliver wrote some fairly frank commentary in Project Golf USA which was kind of fun to read - he didn't beat a course into the ground but did point out areas where it may have been lacking or features that may not have made sense. He was, however, pretty down on both of the Trump Courses and there high rating which was interesting.