I don't think it's fair to judge Tolito for everything Kotaku is and does. Having been able to observe some GJ professionals in their daily work, it's both fascinating and awkward to note that both a professionally run organization and a not-quite-professionally run organization can produce about the same result in terms of style, content, and intended audience. And of course, all of the selfpropelled myths GJ have about players and the industry. (which are shared by roughly 99% of NeoGAF btw)
What I'm trying to say is that "journalism" is a far too wide concept to use in this context since a website or magazine is first and foremost (!) a
product (or brand) that has to be sold, and as such is a mold into which everything is fitted. If I told you that some teen or gossip magazines were written by highly educated professionals, you would probably laugh your ass off and say "no f-ing way". But that is actually true for quite a few of them, despite the products tone, content, and audience. Also: what is believed to be the product's audience may not actually be that audience. Which is to say that like all verbal / written products, it is independent from its producer. Journalists may not write about things they really want, like, or interest them in the slightest. It's their job to sell the product, not their own values.
This seems to be missing from how posters look at outlets in this topic. The thought seems to be that Tolito controls the content of Kotaku, which was already an established brand when he became part of it. (as I see it
It's actually more the other way around. Whatever values he and his staff may have, have to be second to the demands of the product: Kotaku.
What is interesting about this thread, just as it was with Denis Dyack at the time, is the rather personal vendetta in it. "calling out" [insert person]. I know that this whole "personal focus" has been a growing part of journalism in general since the decline of printed newspapers, but it seems much more so in GJ. I think it's worth pointing out that this "personalized access" to professionals is a myth in the sense that the person is still quite irrelevant to the demands of the product.
Also: I have said it before, and I will say it again: the Dyack "victory" was a huge loss in terms of having access to industry professionals and their personal views on their work. Community managers started popping up after that. And 'management' currently means 'control'. Their job is specifically to protect the brand / product (company and products) from detractors. Which is the core of PR.
If you want a serious debate about what GJ is, can be, or is allowed to do for that matter, there also has to be a discussion about the degree of (non-PR regulated) access to companies has to made possible by those some companies. I assure you that they have zero interest in letting anyone near their stuff without PR regulating their every movement. You might as well go to North Korea for the authentic "game industry visitor experience" (patent pending).
I mean: you can't expect journalists to be able to do their jobs (more than currently the case) by their own values when there is zero room for error in terms of keeping access.
/ my two cents