Look, I am sure Elisabeth Rosenthal is a really nice person, and I am totally with her green crusade and all the good work she does but when a piece in the International Herald Tribune begins like this, do you think its a news, news analysis or opinion piece?
For most of my too-busy life I thought little about my carbon footprint: disposable diapers and paper plates for my kids. Fly to a meeting, instead of a taking a train. Toss the bottles, the old printer cartridges. Whoosh . . . gone with the trash.
But in the past couple of years of writing about the environment, I have reformed my ways. I have become a militant recycler - pulling cans that have been missorted out of kitchen garbage. I air-dry clothes, instead of using a dryer.
So I suppose it was only a matter of time before I started thinking about green investments. Let's be frank: Given the size of my portfolio, I will have more of an impact on global warming by planting a tree in my courtyard and recycling cans of diet cola than by moving my paltry sum to companies that care about climate change.
But in the name of consistency and doing my bit, I decided to have a look.
Well actually it's apparently a news piece on green investing, but I'm just not comfortable with this journalism.
If a news piece about the U.S. primaries began with a personal exposition of the journalist's political beliefs and practices, would one read on sure that one was about to be served a helping of the IHT's much prized balanced, objective news reporting?
Why is Rosenthal's well intentioned green writing not getting the same editorial attention which would see a big red pen through the copy I have highlighted, were it indeed a news piece about U.S politics, or any other news matter.
I didn't think the beliefs of a news reporter were supposed to be relevant at the IHT.
This isn't The Daily Telegraph we're reading here chaps, so lets buck up.