I appreciate the reply, Jon.  It's rare for a reporter to actually respond in the article comments (for wholly understandable reasons, of course), so when it does happen I have to give props.  

Having said that, I still found the story awfully one-sided as written.  I agree that it was a lot of information, but my criticism isn't about the volume but rather the severe lack of prominence to the obvious downside.  It should have been mentioned in the first paragraph or two, IMO.  And as more than a minor passing comment.  It's a MAJOR part of the issue.