I cannot understand how Mr. Shafer writes of the greening of journalism as if it were a curse.

He accuses those writing "green" to be essentially under the influence of heart instead of mind.

But is that really so awful?

The Treehugger website was created to provide updates on different technologies, projects and ideas meant to help the planet. Treehugger serves as a place for those in the green creative fields to see what others are thinking of. It offers a place for people to become hopeful -- that in the face of numerous pending environmental catastrophes, people care and are trying to do something about it. Treehugger promotes an excitement about changing the world for the better, and this atmosphere is necessary to keep others intrigued, inspired, and inventive.

If people who care about the environment want to help save it by informing others, you can no more fault them for that than you could fault Christians for wanting to write of the love for Christ. It seems Mr. Shafer's whole hangup is on the definition of journalism. (To that, I must take issue, too. He writes: "...dramatic reduction (of carbon emissions) ...may actually do some good." I dare you: find me a reputable scientist that will word it that vaguely).

To suggest that Treehugger should have the same standards of journalism that, say, the New York Times should operate under is fundamentally unfair. Treehugger has never professed to be a neutral report on the affairs of the world.

To those that insist that no one should write about things that could help save the creatures, land, water, and air: I insist that you should not be writing at all.

I found so little sense made in this article that I couldn't help wondering, like Sarvis, if this Mr. Shafer's article is just another example of power using poison for profit.

To suggest that Treehugger should have the same standards of journalism that, say, the New York Times should operate under is fundamentally unfair.

Well gee -- perhaps that's why the article suggested no such thing, and in fact devoted to a paragraph to saying that Treehugger was not journalism, shouldn't be expected to be, and that the author had no problem with that.

You asked someone to name a reputable scientist who would "word it that vaguely." Here's a reputable scientist who cites numbers saying the entire issue is a fabrication. I'm sure you'll find somre reason this respected Canadian climatologist is a schill of industry.

<link>

The author of this article didn't have an issue with Treehugger. The issue was with Slate's wholesale partnership with Treehugger, who clearly has an agenda. While the agenda itself may not be a problem, the idea that a "journalist" would adopt the agenda and publish it without any kind of journalistic editing or questioning, is. What is the difference between aligning oneself with the oil company or the environmental group if the idea of intellectual consistence or honesty is abandoned? The role of the journalist is to expose ideas and hold them to the light of scrutiny. It is the responsibility of the reader to require that journalists be the purveyors of facts and ideas without endorsement of such ideas. Journalism, in this context, should be reporting. We should all hold ourselves responsible for the thinking and scrutinizing of those reports and expect an unbiased presentation of those "stories."

Would you choose an excellent doctor who does not care about you, or a dumb doctor, who has a great heart?

If the enviromental problems are as big as some worry, then we need to listen to smart people and ignore all the noise coming from the good-hearted but mentally challenged folks.

It comes from the misconception that there's no such thing as a duplicitous double-talking environmentalist. Ditto for Marxist-Leninists.

He accuses those writing "green" to be essentially under the influence of heart instead of mind. But is that really so awful?

Yes, it is. Let me say it again, it is "so awful", and actually much worse than that. It's actual poison. Global warming, and indeed all environmental issues, are deeply technical quantiative issues. If you want to make yourself *feel* good, then by all means, focus on your heart. If you want to solve the problems, your heart won't get you one damn inch closer to the solution. It is of central importance whether or not the advice proffered is actually true. If it turns out that the advice you are following is only making things worse, not better, then your good feelings aren't worth a damn and you are just a poser, not an actual environmentalist. Kolmogorov