Just read the article - first, congrats ! You may not be 'famous' already, but you are becoming an opinion leader, which is fantastic.
On the other hand, the story was clearly biased toward camera phones, whatever superficial lip service the reporter paid to pseudo-objectivity. And I think he really distorted your speech to fit with his bias. He could have mentioned this site, for balance, or at least forward to your blog for a more in depth understanding of your opinion That he didn't bothered is really telling.
Now, from a wider point of view, I think he's right. We're playing the same game over and over again. When photography appeared, painters were incensed people would have their portraits made by a machine instead of crafted by a human being. Then, when small formats (24x36) appeared, true photographers (the ones holding speed graphics) were making fun of those "amateurs", and lastly, when digital made its first inroad, film photographers eyed the new medium with the outmost contempt for the poor quality. We all know how those wars ended : the most convenient, smallest form factor, wins the market because most people don't care about quality, they want fast and good enough solutions.
And the camera phones are a good enough solution in most of the social occasions, even more so since a flash was added to the more common models.