That said, I feel this is a misleading headline… it’s Senator Young and Gillibrand’s *opinion* that Schumer’s bill “has nothing to do with UAP whistleblower David Grusch” - in fact neither senator actually uses those words - whereas your headline attempting to paraphrase them, without that qualifier, makes it seem like that’s an established fact that you, Matt Laslo, are definitively stating.. The numerous references to non-human intelligence and non-human technology in the bill makes it clear it has *everything* to do with what Grusch is claiming (in addition to being about transparency)… it would be interesting to see if Schumer himself shares the same view as Young. The headline would be more accurate if it said something like “Senators say Schumer’s new UAP bill has nothing to do with UFO whistleblower David Grusch“
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.
If any one of them hasn't heard the rumblings on this, they don't need to be in DC. How aware are their staff? They lie without compunction.
thanks for the detailed explanation of the audio!
Glad you caught that! Wanna pull the veil back as much as possible when possible, and that one had all the noises--from the car to Senate floor...
That said, I feel this is a misleading headline… it’s Senator Young and Gillibrand’s *opinion* that Schumer’s bill “has nothing to do with UAP whistleblower David Grusch” - in fact neither senator actually uses those words - whereas your headline attempting to paraphrase them, without that qualifier, makes it seem like that’s an established fact that you, Matt Laslo, are definitively stating.. The numerous references to non-human intelligence and non-human technology in the bill makes it clear it has *everything* to do with what Grusch is claiming (in addition to being about transparency)… it would be interesting to see if Schumer himself shares the same view as Young. The headline would be more accurate if it said something like “Senators say Schumer’s new UAP bill has nothing to do with UFO whistleblower David Grusch“
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.