Steve Burgess writes in 24 Hours to describe new sociological studies. These reveal that masses of ordinary people can, and do, slip between previously immutable and convenient pigeon-holes with apparent ease.
Journalists everywhere have operated on an editorial imperative that assigns each person to a lifetime in one and only one transportation mode — viciously hostile to the other modes. This, according to scientists, is not the case.
Previously thought to be divided into three sub-species — motorist, cyclist, and pedestrian — of humans, according to the new research, may be capable of shifting from one group to another.
The implications for urban transport and world peace could be profound. . . .
. . . If subsequent research confirms the findings, it may lead to new approaches whereby motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians realize that, rather than mutually antagonistic groups, they are all part of a civil society in which the interests of one need not threaten the interests of another. The consequences of such a development are as yet unquantifiable, but researchers are optimistic about a decrease in yelling.
I must say that the article’s headline exemplifies the old paradigm — divide people by transportation mode and play up any real or imagined hostility.
This is how it used to be until relatively recently. The idea that there are different types of people based on travel mode is new and is a media construction and not based on reality.
I don’t see any real evidence of there being a war between these supposed groups of people however I do see a war by the corporate news media against the people. “Divide and Conquer” is a technique that’s been used for centuries. In this case it’s being used to prevent people from discovering that we’ve had our transportation choices narrowed down to a single one that mostly benefits the automotive industrial complex. Most people are smarter than that but some still buy it. They use headlines like this which claim there’s some sort of war going on out there and they, the media are merely reporting it. Have a look at who owns 24 Hours. PostMedia. Since their ownership involves so many different media outlets, they’re able to make their stories dominate.
In The Province “newspaper” there are 20 to 30 pages of automobile ads every single day… a lot more some days. This represents 25 to 30 percent of the entire content. (The Sun isn’t much better.) Add to this the ad campaigns by pipeline companies and real estate ads promoting suburban sprawl and its easy to see why they feel compelled to create this “war”.
While there is certainly significant ad revenue from urban real estate there is almost none from transit and cycling.
Does anybody really believe their editorial content (and more) is not influenced by the industries that allow them to exist?
Well, current thought is that there’s no such thing as unbiased journalism. Such a thing is an impossibility. All we can do is know who’s speaking and take that into account.
I much prefer newsletters or blogs of a particular interest because you know what their interests are. With traditional media there’s an illusion or being unbiased but what it usually is is a framing from their world-view and then they throw in an unreasonable quote from “the other side” to give the impression of balance.