#Gamergate

I don't know how you're looking at the problem but I see these things as mutually exclusive:
reviewer judges the game alone, not the author
reviewer is part of the gaming community

reviewers never exchange money with game developers
review sites are able to pay their reviewers


Personally I'm on the side where reviewers are part of the community, know what's out there and who's making it, and has opinions about what's a good game. I recognize that this means reviewers aren't completely unbiased, and will probably ending up talking to game developers. Because I want to see dev interviews. I want the reviewer to be able to go to PAX and talk to the folks making a game and not feel like that disqualifies them from reviewing it.

I think you've misunderstood slightly and should re-read Grey's post. We're not saying the journalists shouldn't be a part of the "community" or even have a financial relationship with developers. We're asking for transparency. If a developer is helping pay for a site or article, that's fine as long as it is disclosed. I don't know if you listen to NPR but I'd take them as a model. They always disclose if a story is about or concerned with one of their sponsors or even a subsidiary corporation. It's all about context. As long as the reader is aware of the relationship between the writer/site and the developer/game everything is kosher. This movement began because not only were the relationships, both financial and personal, not disclosed, they were outright lied about.

A lot of the anti-gamergate people have created a false dichotomy where anyone pro-gamergate is misogynistic. Gamergate isn't about the representation or lack of women as developers and their portrayal in video games. It's about transparency in journalism. There is no reason someone can't be pro-gamergate AND pro-women's rights, in fact many are.