I know you’re busy, likely chasing other Congress people and getting more great quotes - your coverage has been excellent, and I have been proud to support you with a subscription. But I am disappointed that your response to concerns expressed by several seasoned observers about this headline - which is your paraphrasing of what you thin…
I know you’re busy, likely chasing other Congress people and getting more great quotes - your coverage has been excellent, and I have been proud to support you with a subscription. But I am disappointed that your response to concerns expressed by several seasoned observers about this headline - which is your paraphrasing of what you think Young and Gillibrand are saying, not a direct quote from them - is simply to “take headline complaints up with Chuck Schumer (or Gillibrand)”. They didn’t write the headline - *you did* - and it doesn’t accurately portray how the bill indeed reflects a lot of what David Grusch is claiming, with its 22 references to “non-human intelligence”, and clear moves to rein in private aerospace companies that might have non-human technology. One wonders: are you deliberately trying to minimize the effect that David Grusch has had on Congress with this headline? The article itself is fine, it’s just a headline that doesn’t make any sense, as other people have also stated.
I know you’re busy, likely chasing other Congress people and getting more great quotes - your coverage has been excellent, and I have been proud to support you with a subscription. But I am disappointed that your response to concerns expressed by several seasoned observers about this headline - which is your paraphrasing of what you think Young and Gillibrand are saying, not a direct quote from them - is simply to “take headline complaints up with Chuck Schumer (or Gillibrand)”. They didn’t write the headline - *you did* - and it doesn’t accurately portray how the bill indeed reflects a lot of what David Grusch is claiming, with its 22 references to “non-human intelligence”, and clear moves to rein in private aerospace companies that might have non-human technology. One wonders: are you deliberately trying to minimize the effect that David Grusch has had on Congress with this headline? The article itself is fine, it’s just a headline that doesn’t make any sense, as other people have also stated.