No. If someone did a genuinely positive act; they can report on it positively without having bias. Well, that is where there is difference between opinion and news. Positive reporting can be news as long as it is based in fact. If someone cooked up untruths to fool people into voting for a particular guy, it is not justified. I believe it is so that journos may not be in positions to be owed something by the subjects of the report. Obviously normal people aren't expected to follow rules for a particular job, and there is no harm in getting more people aware of it when you're not a paid journalist. In relation to journalists; they have a duty of care to their audience to not drive them into bad purchases. And liking a game and sharing from normal person is different to that of a journo because journos have much higher credibility (yah sounds right lol) and a larger audience. Its like a doctor or lawyer's advice. There is professional opinion and their own personal / individual piece of advice. If someone is writing at a journo outlet and getting paid by them; their priority should be to the readers and to the outlet.
And at the end of the day; them donating money may not have had much big deal at all or may have been in good faith rather than overblown want to see the game kickstarted and abusing the audience to get it there. Its that they disclose it that is more important. No harm in a few extra words at the top or bottom right?

Certainly, no harm, but I'd say in that case, no harm if they didn't either (it could be automatically inferred by them writing positively about it).

You say this is so that they do not drive the audience into bad purchases. But if they write a positive article about a kickstarter, whether or not they personally backed it would be irrelevant if the kickstarter turned out to be bad.

Taking your doctor/lawyer example, if I went to a doctor because I had some cancer, and the doctor recommended a certain treatment, would it be unethical for the doctor to not mention that she was taking the same treatment because she had the same cancer? I mean, her mentioning it might in fact motivate me MORE towards that treatment. If the treatment turned out to be bad, it would be irrelevant whether or not the doctor was taking it, or if the doctor mentioned that she was taking it. If she had recommended a treatment and it turned out to be bad, her credibility would be damaged whether or not she had mentioned she was taking it herself (or more accurately, it wouldn't have, because doctors/lawyers/writers credibility aren't so exactly tied to their recommendations).

Similarly, if a writer wrote a positive piece about a certain kickstarter, whether or not the writer mentioned that they backed it would be irrelevant if the kickstarter resulted in a successful game, or the kickstarter resulted in a crap game (unless the writer was being paid by the devs).

Is there any claim that Kuchera's reporting on subjects whose Patreons he backed is actually untruthful? If so, that's the scandalous part, not that he paid them for something else they did.

We're also not talking about Kickstarters, where I can also understand concern about (low-grade) conflict of interest. We're talking about supporting a Patreon, which amounts to a subscription to a creator's work. The difference between that and an outright purchase, or especially a subscription to an MMO or seasonal DLC, is what I can't identify.

That's getting into personal judgments to the point where I have to point out that I only speak for myself here and not any kind of GG-consensus, but I'd say the two are comparable if it goes undisclosed given the individual circumstances at play. The allegations of accepting money paint the picture of a company arrangement whereas the Patreon thing involved the writer himself donating money to his subject without disclosing this, so while many might consider blatant quid pro quo where individual writers receive money from the person they've covering worse, that's not what the anonymous accusers are claiming. I think many would probably agree that it's worse when the writers themselves are financially involved with their subjects one way or another because it's that much more likely to color the end result, though again, both are obviously incredibly unethical situations.

It's worth mentioning that we're largely dealing with hypotheticals here; I'm honestly the only person I've met who doesn't ask for or accept review codes. That said, choice factors into the equation a great deal—if someone is reviewing something, they had to obtain it somehow, and that means they either bought it or it was given to them. Review codes should be disclosed 100% of the time (and they sometimes are, but not often enough), leaving no doubt as to how the critic obtained the media they're critiquing. Donating to someone on Patreon is an avoidable conflict, though, and even though it's unprofessional, it really isn't the end of the world if it's properly disclosed. What we're dealing with here is an avoidable conflict of interest that wasn't properly disclosed, and just one of many such examples in the industry that highlight an endemic problem.

Wait, so...
a writer writing about a game while providing money to a dev because of belief in the product is unprofessional,
a writer writing about a game without disclosing that he gave money to the dev because of belief in a product is unethical
and a writer writing about a game where he was provided with a free code for reviewing is unethical?

Kuchera wasn't writing about a game. He was covering the person who made the game and portraying them as a victim of harassment without disclosing his financial ties with said person. And yes, it's unprofessional to give money to anyone you cover except for where doing so is unavoidable or the lesser of two evils.

Yep, they should disclose it if they gave or received anything that wasn't necessary to covering that game, including review codes, Patreon backing, Kickstarter pledges, etcetera. This is relevant information they owe to the reader.

Only if they fail to disclose it. Are you purposefully missing the point here, or do you really not understand how failing to disclose potential conflicts of interest is unethical?

If he had ever bought a game by the subject of a piece, would that be a necessary disclosure?

Interesting question. I suppose a large amount of this stuff relies on the expectations of the audience. Take the review codes thing, for example—many people (even when writing reviews on Steam, I've noticed) feel the need to disclose it when they receive review copies, so the default expectation from the audience seems to be that the reviewer bought said game unless noted otherwise. Since it's a reasonable expectation that someone in game journalism is familiar with many games, then I wouldn't think it's something that needs to be disclosed unless they felt that their experience with said game impacted (or could be perceived by readers as having impacted) their ability to fairly interpret whatever they're writing about. Though in that case, it might just be better to hand off whatever the story is to someone less emotionally involved.

Hereby at the start of every review ever to occur:
"In the interests of full disclosure, I feel it is necessary to state that I obtained this game that I am reviewing here, otherwise I would not review it. It was obtained through interacting with the developer of the game, either by providing money for said game, or receiving said game without money"
Yeah, I'm not purposefully missing the point here, but that sounds daft either way.

Buying a copy because you liked a game is definitely not something that needs to be disclosed. Although, you might as well disclose it as it does make a powerful statement about how much you liked the game.

But, buying a review copy used to be standard practice. Mostly because it reduced the appearance of influence. Disclosing that you bought it shouldn't be needed unless it's a site where some copies are bought and some are donated.
In Pakistan it's acceptable to shill for products in reviews? Because that's exactly what it is when you're accepting free copies in exchange for a review. You're more likely to grant a favorable review because you don't have to justify your money being spent on it.

But you gave money to the developer, and you need to disclose that, according to you!
So if I went to the dev's shop and bought the game, it is okay.
If I pay a monthly subscription to the dev (essentially the equivalent of a patreon where you're constantly supporting the dev) it is ok
But if I backed the dev's kickstarter, it is not okay?
Would the normal, "ethical" way of obtaining the developer's game in the case of a kickstarter (where the game is often cheaper in early tiers) be to not back the kickstarter at all, but buy the game later? Why? How is that ethical? How does it even make sense?

Except I didn't say any of that. I said if you give money to the developer outside of what's necessary to review said game, then it's an unnecessary conflict of interest outside of what's expected by the reader and should thus be disclosed. Patreon isn't automatically bad, nor is Kickstarter, but these are factors that the reader should be made aware of.

Because the journalist could donate a lot or a little and the reader has no way of knowing which until they're told. Someone who pays 1000 for a game is going to have different expectations than someone who dropped 20 bucks.

So what you're saying is that it is unethical for writers to back kickstarters for games they'll write about because they may have given lots of money and thus would be more invested in liking the game?


.....okay.

No? That's not at all what I'm saying. They just have to inform the readers of that detail. That's all.