That's an excellent question, Dylan, because it happens all the time.

The short answer is that reputable publications see themselves as having a responsibility to tell the truth, even if the audience doesn't wan't to hear it, and try to stick to their artistic standards.

But they often acknowledge that disconnect. You see reviews of live performances (of, say, music or a play) in which a critic says, in effect, I hated this but the audience loved it. Book critics do something similar when they note up front that a book is a bestseller, optioned by Spielberg, etc., which signals to readers that others' views may differ from their own. So much depends on the publication, the reviewer, and other factors that you can't generalize about all of them.