"Cracked" and "Genuine Journalism" don't belong in the same sentence. Also, they misunderstood pretty much everything about Gamergate. It isn't about Zoe Quinn...it is about so much more than just one person. There are a few bad eggs, but there is a lot of good discussion points being discussed by people who genuinely care about the industry. All of those topics that call gamergate "misogynist" and whatnot are throwing apart all the good discussions that have come out of this and lumping it into something that most people who talk about Gamergate don't really care about. You take the bad with the good, but that saying goes the other way too...theres some bad in there, but there is a lot of good, and sweeping it under the rug or dismissing it as, well every derogative term you used in your post, isn't doing anyone any good.

I really don't care. I've neither the time nor patience to put up with seemingly endless accusations of bias and sexism from all sides. I just try to ignore any top that deals with "controversial" topics.

My gaming decisions are made from:

"Opinions of Friends"

"Demo"

"Gameplay Videos and LPs"

"Opinions of Forum goers I agree with"

and then, if I still have some doubt I might take a look at a few revews. 

You know what, this is the approach I've had to take for the best part of a decade. The last time I really cared about the opinion of a professional reviewer was Official UK Dreamcast Magazine where strangely, they weren't afraid to give even SEGA releases poor marks if they thought the games were bad. I miss that magainze, it was the epitome of gaming journalism for me. That and CVG back when it was good.

I understand that as everything born in the internet, this result in only one thing: chaos.

Its really not about journalism ethics, but about attack to girl in journalism, or in gaming development, etc. I understand that there are some good example of the lack of ethics in various sites, but because of this, i try to use various sources, and then see the truth in different reports.

Its like riots: 2% of people there want change, 98% want more chaos. Like riots, good things can come of it, but i'm not trusthing everything on it. But good things can come out of it. For now i will just wait and see.

I've actually been pretty pleased to see reviewers being a bit harsher this gen so far. Makes things better.

I agree wholeheartedly that there is a clear lack of ethics in videogame journalism. But to argue that any good has arisen out of HOUNDING A WOMAN OUT OF HER HOME, for the greivous crime of having sex is just wrong.

And more to the point. Video game journalists being in bed (whether metaphorically or literally) with video game producers is a total non issue. It is literally unimportant.

Things more important than 'Gamegate': Poverty, AIDs, Islamic State, Scottish Independance. Also; fucking ANYTHING.

I don't give a flying fudge.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/

Read all of this. Its politics.

Me? I just game.

I thought that was a great article, shared it on facebook as finally a decent article on the subject, and was instantly hit with responses about how bias it is only showing one side of the story... 

Really, there will be no winners in this, just get out of this toxic subject while you can.

a. Zoe Quinn did a lot of shady junk...sleeping with a journalist was just the thing that came out first
b. The good didn't come from the people who harassed her (I think we all agree that harassment is fucked up), it came from all the discussion that arose around the subject. You shouldn't throw away the entire thing just because some people said some horrible shit (and don't try to imply that the people on Zoe's side didn't also throw their fair amount of shit). Horrible shit comes up in any discussion on the internet, but that doesn't mean we should lose the right to talk about things and try to change things. 
c. ...uhhh, sleeping with the people you write about is pretty much the clearest violation of impartiality that can be found.
d. You're last sentence is kind of silly. Theres always something more important, but no amount of talking is going to change ISIS or get rid of AIDS. Talking however can improve the ethical foundation of gaming journalism and help make gaming better as a whole. Why should we not strive towards that goal?

However, Gamergate isn't about Zoe Quinn...it is about the discussions that the scandal sparked, which, to people who care about Gaming, can be really important discussions to have. Through this we have already spurred a lot of sites to change their disclosure policies, but many more changes are necessary before we get to a place where I can be comfortable with calling  it "game journalism".

EDIT: This is a great article (posted by TheAdjustmentBureau):

http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/