So this seems like a nice quiet corner of the internet where I can safely say my piece about the whole #PlayerPortal nonsense.
Setting aside the bickering for just a moment and trying to respond to the movement's [angry hordes] stated goals in regards to journalistic ethics.
Here are their broader demands as I have heard them.
1. Journalists should not have personal (romantic or extremely close) relationships with their subjects and then write about them when possible.
2. Journalists and subjects should disclose any relationships they do have when it is unavoidable for some reason, and maybe those pieces should be more like 'letter to the editor' pieces rather than in the review or news sections.
3. (less often mentioned in the last three months) Journalists should not accept gifts of promo items or money and then review said companies games.
4. Game journalists can't critique games based on the political or social implications of the content of the narrative. All news must be "neutral" or give equal time to the opposing view. This is especially true for issues of race and gender.
5. Journalists can never have personal relationships with developers in the industry even if they never write about them once the relationship is formed. Those who do should never write about anything ever again in the industry.
6. Game news outlets should never critique the broader culture of gaming and game making, because that may offend their customer base.
Ok so the first 3 goals are pretty reasonable in general I can get behind them. They sound like things I learned in my class on ethics in journalism in college. For most of the larger companies claiming status as 'news outlets' this was either already the case, or was implemented a few months ago in response to initial requests from readers. As far as I can tell no person outside the movement disagrees with them.
Then things seem to go off the rails (even before they crash and burn in troll hell).
The last 3 things are not journalistic ethics as I learned them. They are in fact the opposite of what I was taught. I do agree that journalists should be honest about their bias, because every human has them. Frankly the articles critiquing this whole thing have been pretty open about their personal bias against those in the movement. However, many claiming to want the first 3 ethics won't admit to wanting those other issues silenced unless pushed to admit it.
So here is the problem with 4-6, they are censorship in a real sense. Especially when attached to the tactics of silencing that have been used against those who break those rules. Frankly if you don't like the way a news paper covers a story then go by a different news paper. Or write your letter to the editor, or response article. As long as everyone is being upfront about their relationships I see no reason to question their hidden agendas. Yes these sites are being intentionally socially political. I am sorry you don't like that, but that doesn't make it an ethical problem on their part.
For a great summation on why there is nothing "wrong" with video game reviews talking about social issues in games listen to the podcast Polygon put out on Bayonetta. 2 http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/16/6990847/we-talk-about-our-bayonetta-2-review-on-our-podcast-quality-control
Anyway again not even touching the landmine of the culture of violence this whole thing has encouraged, I am just here to say that I disagree with the platform that game sites being political is unethical. It may not be savory, you may not agree with it, but that does not make it a moral wrong in the world.
TLDR: It is not unethical to make your reader offended or uncomfortable.