I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to inject personal ideology and politics into reviews. Ultimately the only reviewer who can tell you whether or not a game is good is yourself, but reviews are necessary to many in determining whether it is worth investing time into playing the game in the first place. It is very difficult to review a game in a purely objective manner; doing so just reduces it to a few comments about graphics or gameplay that don't help a lot of people make a decision.
Reviewers all have different beliefs and some will be more useful to the individual in helping them make a decision than others. Each have their different priorities and beliefs as to what a game should be, and the best thing we can do as consumers is consider various reviewers with an open mind to find which ones we tend to agree with the most, who will give an opinion on the game that is meaningful to us. Carolyn criticised GTA V for being 'profoundly misogynistic' which is a priority to her and to some viewers but not to most. I think there are much worse things about the game than that, like the mission that makes you torture someone. Nonetheless her reviews are useful to people who share her beliefs and priorities about what is important in a game or what is especially bad.
The problem with sites like GameSpot and IGN is that they have numerous staff members who review games and it is almost random which one ends up reviewing a game you're interested in. While Carolyn gave GTA V a 9.5 despite being 'profoundly mysoginistic', another reviewer might have given it a lower score after taking stronger issue with another aspect of the game, or given it a perfect score. If people are to rely on GameSpot as a good source for reviews, it needs to present consistent standards and priorities in its reviews that won't appeal to everybody but to a dedicated group that agree with those standards and generally trust GS's opinion. Having numerous reviewing staff makes this more difficult. I think it's fine for Carolyn, for example, to review games from the perspective of social justice activism, as long as she presents herself as such and reviews those games for people who consider that ideology important. If a review is published on GameSpot as the site's official review, however, the implication is that it is a review to appeal to a wider interest group of people who play games, not just supporters of a particular ideology.
Sites like polygon are also known for reviewing games from an ideological point of view, but Polygon is very consistent in doing so such that anyone who doesn't agree knows to just not read Polygon's reviews. Bigger, more generic sites like GameSpot however do not present a consistent set of standards or beliefs about what is good and bad in a game which is why some users feel alienated when a review pops up that makes a big deal over something they don't see as important (or vice versa).