If people gave a fuck about ethics in gaming journalism (eye roll) they would have been more outraged that games from notable AAA developers got exaggerated positive reviews for seemingly no reason at all. This had been happening for years before Gamergate ever became a thing. Big name developers have more to gain or lose from reviews of their highly anticipated games than some no name indie developer would from a game that isn't likely to sell more than a few thousand copies regardless of whether a bullshit positive review is made. Indie games require word of mouth to sell. Big name games from well known developers can lose tons of sales from a bad popular review.
No, instead, Gamergate was a case of faux outrage fueled partly by genuine concern over unethical behaviour from "gaming journalists", but fueled mostly by man child insecurities and hatred for women from a bunch of kissless neckbeards. The controversy it generated was blown way out of proportion, and I don't buy for one second that it "originally" was truly about ethics in gaming journalism.