The more I think about it, the sequence of events makes no fucking sense to me at all.
What is the scenario here?
A
-Emily Rogers speaks to a dev who is privately moaning that their one major interview with ?? isn't posted yet.
-She writes an article reporting this, and inventing the main thrust of the argument - that the dev also reported that many of the questions were leading ones, attempting to frame the interview as Wii U bashing
-Kotaku decides it must be them, checks with the dev who says it is a pack of baloney.
-Rogers is tarred and feathered.
Or:
B
-Emily Rogers speaks to a dev who is privately moaning that their one major interview with ?? isn't posted yet, and that the questions were leading.
-She writes an article reporting this
-Kotaku decides it must be them, asks the dev if they said that and the dev lies to kotaku.
Now their lie could either have been
1)they didn't want to admit what they said about kotaku privately
2)they didn't want to talk about the other, non-kotaku interview (since they never wanted it to come out anyway according to the original article).
I'm going with B2. Dev lied. There was another interview, it wasn't with kotaku. Most people seem to believe A because of their poor opinion of Rogers' journalistic standards. But that would be too weird an invention for me: there had to have been some basis for the original complaint. But B2 is consistent with the original article, and everything that has transpired since, including Rogers saying "it wasn't kotaku" and dev saying "we only spoke to kotaku".