This shows that there were conflicts of interest, and while I do applaud them going back to update the stories with disclaimers, he also insisted there was nothing to apologize for. Phrased in another way, Totilo is saying they made mistakes, they aren't going to let it happen again, and they aren't sorry. I am of the mind that apologies cost you nothing and can gain you everything, but the lack of the apology is not the important part. 

Totilo speaks of murky situations when a reporter is establishing relationships  with those he reports on.  His assertion is that this is needed.He doesn't want his reporters not to be able to make connections in the industry because it could cause a conflict of interest. This is troubling to hear the EIC say, as he is the one in charge of policing conflicts of interest. He of all people should understand the fine line that must be walked, and furthermore, should understand the importance of not giving his readers an impression that the line could be crossed.

He admits to walking in the "murky territory," but his response is not to prevent the murkiness in the first place. Instead, he asks the reader to have faith that both himself and Grayson have acted appropriately. For a publication so embattled, that is a large amount of faith required. The primary problem is that he recognizes these issues but does not think anything needs to be done about them. 

In my mind, Totilo takes one step forward and two back on most points. He acts admirably regarding the articles they have appended with disclosures, and I absolutely admire his strong stance on Patreon and Kickstarter,  virtually banning reporters from engaging wih them. I disagree with his refusal to offer an apology for losing some trust of his readers, regardless of whether he thinks anything was actually wrong. It is, however, his views on that murky territory that I have a hard time reconciling in any way with my own. He feels it is up to the journalist to know when a line has been crossed and to trust them to act accordingly when the lines become too blurred. There was a time I would have perhaps even agreed with that sentiment. If you cannot trust a journalist, you are better off not reading them in the first place. Time and attention are too valuable to squander having to second guess the motives of the author. When the editor, the one most in charge of policing ethics in the publication, does not realize the importance of erring on the side of caution, it gives little cause for trust in the publication. Until Kotaku understands the importance of impartiality, readers should be cautioned not to take what they read there on good faith.

Keep up the good work.

As Sommers points out, she received harsh criticism for her previous video, some from those very publications. It does beg the question however: How can games cause sexism but not cause violence?  What is it that makes sexist ideals conveyable through a game, but not allow violent urges to be instilled? These are complex questions, and perhaps can only truly be answered someplace like Twitter.