I think the turning point of IGN was that horrible editorial from 2009 that essentially lambasted their readers for making New Super Mario Bros. Wii a smashing success and ignoring 'Splosion Man. That's what readers want to see when they login to their news site, right? "Top Story: You Suck." It's one thing to go after a company that people enjoy the products of. Most aren't willing to jump in front of a bullet for them, although they might heavily question why you are firing at them so intently. But when the gun is turned towards the readers, most would bail out and seek news elsewhere. Nobody wants to be called an asshole right when they enter the door.
It's no secret that the rise of Nintendo fan blogs like that site comes directly as a result of disillusionment from the big players, IGN for their seeming unwillingness to do their jobs and gamespot for their elitist, nitpicky scoring system and their penchant for accepting bribes for reviews as was the case in the Kane and Lynch fiasco, calling into question whether they were harshly critical because they felt that way or because the check didn't clear. According to Alexa, a lot of the big media sites have been losing traffic since early 2010, and I'd say it's a pretty reasonable conclusion that it's because they ran off 90 million potential readers.
Now some of these fanblogs do have an echo chamber effect where criticisms of Nintendo, even when valid, are viewed with skepticism. But that's a direct reaction to how the big sites behaved when they made clear that they just didn't seem interested in Nintendo and would rather do something else. IF you had to pick between a brown-nosing yes-man or a nitpicking jerk who slammed you for every move, right or wrong, which would you choose?
