If merely being present has stopped a course of action, then yes, merely being present is 'interfering' with things. Your quoted description matches the headlines you think are out of order - the drone did imperil the helicopters (or they wouldn't have been grounded), it did interrupt the firefighters, it did get in the way, and it did impede the battle against the fires. None of those headline need active malicious intent to 'work'.
> and not an intentional (and highly successful) attempt to grandstand.
Ah, right... the papers, they're being political about it and should be ignored as a result.... but labelling the judgement call 'grandstanding', that's not political at all...
> If merely being present has stopped a course of action, then yes, merely being present is 'interfering' with things.
No, it really isn't. Hypothetical scenario time: "Black cat steps on mirror, firefighters let house burn for fear of upsetting spirits." Was the black cat interfering with things? Or were the firefighters' beliefs about black cats and spirits interfering with things?
> the drone did imperil the helicopters (or they wouldn't have been grounded)
Sure, it follows -- if you assume their judgment was infallible.
> None of those headline need active malicious intent to 'work'.
I never accused anyone of acting maliciously.
> they're being political about it and should be ignored as a result.... but labelling the judgement call 'grandstanding', that's not political at all...
It's highly political, of course. I never pretended otherwise.
If you require intent for something to be considered interference, I guess you're not much of a wave physicist.
> I never accused anyone of acting maliciously.
No, my point was that that was what you were saying the papers were doing - you were saying that the papers were injecting malicious intent into the story. Okay, you didn't literally use the word 'malicious', but I think most people would not have a problem with it, given the context you were suggesting the papers were giving ("active interference" preventing firefighters from doing their work)
> and not an intentional (and highly successful) attempt to grandstand.
Ah, right... the papers, they're being political about it and should be ignored as a result.... but labelling the judgement call 'grandstanding', that's not political at all...