When an Editor is Mistaken

I'm a bit confounded. I'm working with the editor of an online magazine and twice now, she's rejected articles I submitted--which is fine, I understand that not everything I write is going to be what they're looking for. What bothers me is that, both times, the reasons she's given have had nothing to do with my articles. With one, she said it wouldn't work for them because the person I'd interviewed was (insert random fact here). But if she'd actually read the article, she would know that the opposite was true. Either she merely skimmed the article and made a few (wrong) assumptions based on what she (didn't) read, or she's confused my article with someone else's.

If she doesn't want my articles, that's fine, and I certainly don't want to antagonize her by arguing the point. But if she's saying "No," based solely on a misunderstanding, then should I try and (politely) correct her, so that her decision is based on facts? Or should I just accept "no" as "no," regardless of the reasons she supplies? Is it a case of: "The editor is always right (even when she's wrong)"?

Honestly, I will probably just say, "Okay, thanks for letting me know," and move on. But I wanted to get an opinion from the experts.

What annoys me the most is she had already agreed to buy the article, in fact was very enthusiastic about it, but then read it and decided (apparently based on misunderstood facts) not to. That irks me. I know she's quite busy and may not have time to read each article thoroughly, but to get such basic details wrong? You may be right, Terie, that she's just no longer interested and didn't know how to tell me, but it wasn't a form rejection, because I've known her for a couple of years and she's bought more than a dozen of my articles. Well, whatever the case, I'm not going to argue the point. I'll just say, "Thanks for your consideration," and leave it at that.