I can count the actual journalists in gaming I like on one hand, even if I disagree with them; like most traditional journalists they tend to be bound by ethics and integrity. But the fact of the matter, "game journalism" is little more than informal blogging; which somehow allows these bloggers to say things that would get actual journalists slammed for slander or other clauses. Now, I don't like blogging or most commentators (I think Joe Vargas has turned into an idiot, personally) but there are some well-worded people out there who do blogging/commenting well without a journalistic doctrine or degree.

I also hate the seemingly "legit" companies like IGN posting articles that are little more than cheap shots (and not real journalism) painting gamers as self-entitled mob mentality trolls/children. When the public rejected the ending of Mass Effect 3, I understood why, and I liked how they were putting their frustration into a public but well-meant place (charity drives for example). 

Reviews imo, should be more in line of well-written and ethical comments on the mechanics of a game with maybe some art theory thrown in. Critics will always have their biases, so there is no such thing as absolute objectivity. It's a subjective writing form; but why is game journalism so awful and amateurish to the point of where Rock Journalism was in 1969? This is one of our major mediums, it should have integrity and ethical foundation just like cinematic critics (Christy Lemire, Roger Ebert, etc) and so on.

Oh, and I dislike Anita because she's an idiot who doesn't have a leg to stand on with her lack of research and flawed study, not because she's a woman with an opinion. I'd think the same of a man with the same opinion.