Am I a whiny bitch?

I run an affiliate marketing network (one of the two big ones in Australia), and have done for nearly 4 years, after working in most facets of online for 12+ years.
One of the trade magazines in Oz recently wrote a 5 page article about affiliate, and quoted our Marketing Director extensively, and was, overall, a balanced and positive article, which we normally would have been very positive about.
The only problem? The headline: 'It All started with porn' I think it was mean to be a funny intro about the misconceptions about affiliate marketing, but I was, and still am pretty pissy about it.
We don't, and never have had anything to do with the adult industry, so I was a little hot under the collar, and fired off an email to the editor of the publication suggesting that, despite the fact they had a much closer link to the adult industry, I thought it was unlikely that they would intro an article about Google or YouTube in quite the same way.

To be fair to her, she got back to me quickly, and did try to answer most of my queries, and simply said that the intro was 'irreverent', but still just an intro.

The rest of the email was ok, but I was a little taken aback by this sentence:
'...we need you to be a little bit more appreciative of our positive coverage and a little more understanding of our misguided coverage if we are to ever cover affiliate again.'

So here's my question: am I being a little sensitive, or is that just outrageous? It's not a big trade mag, so I'm not too stressed whether they do or don't cover affiliate again, but I'm trying to figure out whether I should really get annoyed about it, and escalate the issue given that I was fundamentally threatened by the editor, or whether I'm being a whiny bitch? I did a bit of research on the editor, and was amused to find a huge piece in The Age from 2 years ago about living in Barcelona - this obviously qualifies her to comment on the cutting edge of online marketing in Australia - it was a nicely written piece...
Genuinely interested in people's opinion here

cheers
m

Virgin Blue's Epic Marketing Mistake

I travel Syd-Melb and back at least once a month, and have done for at least ten years for work. I am a Virgin Blue regular, and have been ever since they launched in 2000. Why? They are overall cheaper, they are more often than not on time, their crew are smiley and nice, if occasionally a little officious, but they do 'live the brand'. The other thing about Virgin Blue is that, when they started out, they were determinedly egalitarian. The prices were relatively easy to predict, and I would regularly get Seat 1a, right next to the door.

But all this has changed in the last year, ever since Virgin brought in the empty red chairs up the front - I have been on flights where from row 7 back it was completely chockers, and there was one wanker in a suit sitting up the front (and no, it wasn't me, I average $200 return on Virgin).

I can't comment on the business model - maybe selling 50% of those seats on the busy 6/6:45/7am flights @$500 each makes sense, but from a marketing poiint of view it's a complete catastrophe -it takes Virgin's egalitarian, happy smiley brand ethos and craps all over it. I was on a 60% full 8:15 pm flight last night (had an 8am conference date - www.marketingnow.biz, so wanted to get there the night before), and there were ZERO peeps in the red seats.

Wake up Virgin Blue and smell the coffee - democratise the Red seats, or (GASP) reward your frequent flyers by letting them use them if they're not full.

cheers
m