Or they could say nothing, which is probably best.
Seriously? I think you may being too modest here.
After all, we're not talking about a one-shot expose that blows over in a month; you have been writing about these people for years now, relentlessly exposing their hypocrisy at every turn, both here and on social media. Provocatively and derisively.
This last piece may have been the tipping point, as the title started with the pay-for-play journalist's name, making it googlable for all, even if one can't see the whole article.
At some point, one must respond in some manner or else it looks worse than staying silent.
Why are you surprised that you raised the consciousness of the industry to the point that the journalists feel they must answer? Isn't that what you want?
With that in mind, the minimalizing, sarcastic approach is a good one, as they are not lying per se, or even using non-denial denials. They're just saying that this is nothing but someone trying to sell newspapers, and true, if only trivially so.
Anyone who thinks they are hinky already will not be impressed, but anyone who actually liked their writing just needs the tiniest reassurance to believe on.
So you should take a bow. :)