I'm let down by the unconscious bias in the reporting here that cuts against one big journalism principle: let the other side speak.

While extensive comments are made about China's matcha trade, there is no voice from the China side. Ironically, it's something I learned as an intern at the Financial Times’ Money Media, when I was asked to get comments about a company that was discussed.

It’s not hard for the FT to ask the China team to get comments and relevant data. I, for one, would love to read about how Chinese professionals respond to the comments made about them. Moreover, I'd love to see how ready they are in responding to the global matcha shortage, but that information is lacking.

The piece does not demonstrate the same journalistic rigor used in business journalism.

My guess is perhaps because it's considered a 'consumer trend' story. But tea production is not "just a trend" for those whose livelihoods is dependent on it.

(By the way — poor plantation in Zhejiang, whose picture got used to provide a visual of what inferior matcha in China is like without given a chance to weigh in. It's not clear if they even produce matcha at all.)