Even if it is a scam, I don't see how that is relevant. Most of the article is about things that apply to this kind of grand endeavor regardless of whether it turns out to be realistic and legit, completely nuts and legit, or illegitimate.
"Even if it is a scam, I don't see how that is relevant." Well that certainly neatly summarises the sort of magical thinking about technology currently in vogue.
The fact is it does matter whether or not Mars One is realistic or legitimate. Because there's always a backlash. Right now we have some optimism about space - big, hairy expensive programs like the ISS are actually getting done. Space X is actually achieving what so many internet billionaire's pet space projects failed to do previously. "Grand Endeavours" aren't made up of PR stunts and ridiculous plans - they're made up of really smart, tough people working on really hard problems for a long time.
What happens when the Mars One backlash and disappointment hits the mainstream? Do you think the average person is going to have a lot of faith in subsequent NASA proposals for Mars? What do you think is the flipside of this?
It doesn't really. He doesn't provide any counter evidence to Roche's claims. He just confirms one (the 75% donation of media fees) and claims it didn't affect his wife's chances. Though, logically, of course it would since she's one of the most media-present candidates.