Sometimes it is in response to small and predictable incidents that pennies drop. The most recent 'Shane Warne affair' was such an incident . A cyclist and motorist (Warne) claim the same space, get enraged. The cyclist's bike is damaged; the driver twitters about mug cyclists. It gets into print. People rally to support their cause. Happens all the time.
As a cyclist I own an interest. From my perspective, no matter who was right and wrong, the salient fact is that cyclists are more vulnerable than drivers. When they collide, cyclists and their bikes finish up needing repairs. That is a good reason why cyclists should no more irritate motorists than they would provoke unchained pit bulls.
At the time of the incident I was following the Leveson enquiry into the British press, and trying idly to identify what seemed to be the distinguishing qualities of political, economic and cultural commentary in the News Limited media.
Different newspapers, different writers, different topics, but they had something in common. In a blind test you would not be able to associate every News Limited column with the stable, but you would instantly recognize the provenance of many columns.
That led me to reflect more broadly on the quality of much public conversation in Australia, and to ask why it is so often confrontational and dismissive of other views.
The penny dropped when I read in one News Limited outlet a commentary on the Warne affair. It sided with Warne and motorists generally. It castigated cyclists as an unruly road hazard, and supported the call for licensing them. The tone was indignant, certain, magisterial and dismissive.
The perspective of the article and the qualities of the writing seemed to define the characteristic News Limited style of commentary. It instinctively sides with the stronger, wealthier and less vulnerable. They should be free to make and enjoy their wealth and to exercise their power without constraint. The weaker and more vulnerable should get out of the way and be prevented from interfering.
When conflict arises, the weaker are chastised. Unions, government ministers, Palestinians, greenies, occupiers, employees, Muslims, intellectuals, Indigenous and refugee activists and judges are treated with scorn when they challenge