I honestly can't see any point behind this story at all; at least, not with the slant that seems to be being put on it. Drobe seems to be making out that the underlined sections of Andrew's email are outrageous and deliberately designed to denigrate the news portals (and Drobe in particular), but the comments don't read that way to me at all. It was perhaps unnecessary for Andrew to make that comment (he could just have said that announcements were put on c.s.a.announce), but I don't suppose it occurred to him that an innocent remark might provoke an entire news story on Drobe.
What Andrew is saying here appears to me to be nothing other than factual. Developers announce their products primarily on c.s.a.announce, which is where you should normally look for such announcements. You can't rely on the portals like Drobe and the Icon Bar to cover every last single announcement that appears there, because they'll make stories out of the announcements that they consider to be the most interesting, and can't possibly be expected to cover every last item. Exactly the same comment could be aimed at the magazines, and I see nothing in the least bit wrong with it. Another, perhaps better, way of putting Andrew's point across would be to say:
1. The primary source of information is c.s.a.announce, because that's where all the press releases appear initially.
2. If you don't have convenient Internet access, and/or prefer getting news from magazines, then Archive is the magazine most likely to quote R-Comp press releases.
And beyond that, other magazines and online portals may or may not choose to cover the release of any new piece of software, depending on how interesting they consider it to be.
What's the problem with that? Andrew clearly isn't singling out Drobe as a target to attack (he mentions the Icon Bar too), and what he says is perfectly accurate and reasonable.
By the way, if one searches Drobe's pages for references to Messenger Pro 4, it's actually not that easy to find any announcement of the launch of this version, which rather backs up the point that Andrew was making.