So the primary reason for the blacklisting, it seems, is that Kotaku leaked game announcements. Seems reasonable to blacklist them for doing this. Those announcements were essentially embargoed news stories and Kotaku broke the embargo.

As a gaming review or news site, if you break a review or news embargo on purpose you should fully expect to get blacklisted - I know I would if we were to do this on VGC. What Kotaku did, in the eyes of a publisher, is essentially this, but even worse. Do they really expect to not face any consequences for doing this?

Totilo tries to argue the point that what Kotaku is doing is an example of actual journalism, in contrast to what most video game news really is (essentially advertising, with little in the way of actual analysis). Not that I believe him, as the primary drive for any major video game site is hits and I don't buy for a minute that Kotaku is any different(!), but fair enough if you want to take such a stance. However, if you do decide to go down that route don't expect to receive preferential treatment from publishers - which is essentially what receiving advanced review copies and special contacts is.

Kotaku wants to have its cake and eat it. Tough; it's one or the other. You either comply with embargoes or you break them and face the consequences for doing so. I think Kotaku thought it was too big to be blacklisted by publishers for its actions, but now that it finds itself in a position where numerous publishers have blacklisted them they've decided to try and whip up community backlash against publishers and force their hands into restoring Kotaku's status. I hope it doesn't work.