It also seemed to conflate various topics that are only tangentially-related. Conflicts of interest in journalism have little (but not nothing, admittedly) to d

It also seemed to conflate various topics that are only tangentially-related. Conflicts of interest in journalism have little (but not nothing, admittedly) to do with representation in media. And harassment in (online) communities is an umbrella issue that reaches far beyond either of the above. The conflation was likely a (successful) attempt to define a binary: either you support journalists, want representation in media that reflects (almost always American) demography, and dislike online abuse. Or you dislike the gaming press, want every video game character to look like Doomguy, and spend your evenings telling women to make you a sandwich. It must all be in the binary that conveniently reflects the wider American culture war and political divide. Maybe it had to be a binary to avoid the hard work tackling of these big issues individually: look at how many times the author(s) not only hand-wave away "ethics in gaming journalism" but disparage the suggestion. I'd hazard a guess that it's because it's much easier to call people out for sexism than it is to fix the structural issues with the press-publisher relationships. The fact that the whole subject became a cesspool also kept a lot of people, myself included, from wading into it even if they have things to contribute. I'm not going to risk being called a misogynist or a sexist by suggesting that game reviewers buy their own games and not attend schmoozy press events. I think that "kick men out completely" is hyperbole, but the "one-sided thinking" is spot-on.