How can a monitor with no display be recommended over one that had a broken display?
I can provide at least 2 reasons. First, one with no display was designed with that in mind. The screen may be a vital part of the product and without it is functionally useless, e.g. a laptop. Secondly, even if it's not that vital, you're paying for functionality you aren't getting.
That said, if this is an issue covered under warranty I'm not even sure why it was that big of a factor even if it's critical to the product. Definitely worth mentioning in the review but these types of reviews almost never test the longevity of the product so it's difficult for them to say their experience is typical or that the screen won't last long.