Edit: This comment assumes arguendo that the original claims of Gamergate are true. I do not necessarily make or agree with that assumption. This is the portio

Edit: This comment assumes arguendo that the original claims of Gamergate are true. I do not necessarily make or agree with that assumption. This is the portion of Gamergate that, too me, doesn't fit in with the claims of being entirely about journalistic ethics. If the situation were a journalist and a developer went out on the town for an evening of fancy drinks paid for by the developer, followed by the journalist writing a positive review for the developer, we would be primarily be upset at the journalist for their breach of ethics. Similarly, when a congressman takes a bribe, we are mostly mad at the congressman. When a doctor takes compensation to push certain pharmaceuticals, we largely get upset at the doctor. In this specific instance, the vitriol seems to be directed primarily at the developer, and the journalist is largely ignored. What is the different, in this case, that causes us to fixate on the developer and not the journalist?