The attempt was to discredit specific female games journalists, at least one of whom acted in a manner which was calculated to stir up outrage and was possibly unethical (for those of you who want to argue about whether or not her behavior was unethical, I am not interested in spending the time looking at what she did in order to reach a conclusion).
Even that's not accurate.
There was not attempt to discredit anybody, but rather exposure of corruption in the gaming press. Some of the people exposed were women, but most of them were men. This whole situation probably would have been ignored like every other instance of exposure of corruption in the gaming press, except about 20 articles were posted on the same day proclaiming the end of gamer culture because it was overrun with misogynists.
In particular, they pointed to a claim that a female game developer had had sexual relationships with male game journalists around the same time that they provided positive reviews of or financial backing for her game. The resulting ire was described by all (yes all, as in not one disagreeing) prominent gaming journals as misogyny and slut-shaming the woman in question, even though it was almost completely directed at the men she was purported to have relationships with.
As for what you have in parentheses, I also don't care whether or not one considers her behavior unethical. She is not a journalist. Rather, I care about whether the journalists acted unethically. Even if all of the original claims of corruption are false, it still seems dishonest and unethical that the games journalists have not yet addressed the claims at all, while instead accusing the accusers of being motivated by bigotry. Even if they are bigots, an ad hominem - or more specifically ad feminam - attack does not prove their accusations false.