So, what exactly is the problem here? As you all know, the Linux kernel is licensed under version 2 of the GNU GPL; however, there are parts of the kernel that are not Free and are closed-source. This is mostly driver firmware code that lives in a separate folder, with warnings and all that, and this code needs to be loaded specifically. It's basically code for which no open alternative exists.
Linus (for some reason, addressing him by his last name seems odd) has made it quite clear over the years that he chose the GPL not because of ideological reasons, but because of practical reasons. His stance towards accepting small bits of proprietary firmware code into a walled-off, non-default folder fits this mentality rather well; it increases the usefulness of the Linux kernel for those that just want something that works, while allowing Free software purists to properly ignore the code.
How much code are we talking about? Well, Linux 1.3.0, released in 1995, was entirely Free software - no binary blobs whatsoever. In 1996, version 2.0 contained 143kb of binary blobs in its 4.7MB compressed tarball, growing in size to 1.3MB in the 26MB tarball of version 2.4.19 in 2002. Linux 2.6.33 contains a total of about 2.5MB of binary blobs.
This is, at its core, a valid concern, however, most people simply won't care. Linux has become a pretty big market, and people simply need it to work, and most of them don't care that some parts of their machine need some binary stuff to work properly. If the choice is "optional binary blob and working hardware" or "hardware that doesn't work", the choice is easy for most.
Raising awareness of this concern is a noble goal at heart, but some form of understanding from the FSF-LA would've been prudent. The Linux kernel plays a very big role in the success of Free software, and without it, Free software still wouldn't have a kernel. In other words, the tone of the press release isn't particularly helpful, and surely won't do anything to convince people - in fact, it'll only piss people off. Addressing Linus Torvalds directly, blaming the entire situation on him and him alone, calling it a bait and switch - that's not constructive. It's trolling.