The more the news media keeps making direct comparisons to military drones, the more people will act in a reactionary way. I did like that they singled out those using "drones" for video and photographic artistry. That's why I use it for, and more of the general public need to hear about these types of "non-scary" uses.
I'm sorry, is this the same country that allows assult rifles for recrational use? Well guns are too controversial an issue to bring up, let's use cars instead.
Try to substitute "Drone" with "car" in the video, and see if that makes sense. The military uses "cars" to transport troops. Should we ban cars? More people are killed in car accidents than drone accidents, should we ban cars? Everyone can walk into a car dealership and buy a car, should we demand some kind of license to drive a car (unlike a gun!) Ok, all over the world governments are demanding that. Maybe not a bad idea for "drones". In Denmark, even fixed wing, glider and helicopter model operators require a "license" to fly away from their own airfield.
If you're project was for real estate, it might not have been media but FAA. Earlier in July FAA sent out pseudo subpeonas to all major real estate companies in the US asking for names of realtors using or hiring UAV operators to photo/video properties and reiterated that using UAVs commecially was illegal.
Re: CNN story - it wasn't as bad as most media make them to be and had no terrorist insuations, just shared timespot with terrorist stories . It pretty much addressed how popular, how affordable they now are and the need for a national safety guidelines. CNN interviewed Dem. rep Schuler from New York who just advocated for a nationwide basic safety regulations (instead of individual state regulations) and he was all for commercial use or as he put "productive commercial use". He did bring up a commercial use he wasn't for - private investigators using them to follow people and the privacy concerns.