The media and political commentators regularly exaggerate the political differences that exist between interests. During the Live 8 concerts there were lots of opinion pieces in the media (well in The Australian anyway) from writers condemning Live 8 and declaring that the only way to combat world poverty was via trade liberalisation (rather than things like foreign aid and debt forgiveness).
The funny thing was that once you took a look at the Live 8 site you discovered that one of the key things they were campaigning for was trade liberalisation. Yes they also were keen on issues of aid and debt but nonetheless they were all for the reduction of barriers to trade. In other words the bleeding heart hippy musos and the pro-globalisation economic commentators substantially agreed on a very major issue!
Yet if all you had to go on were the writings of those commentators then you would be forgiven for thinking that they and the Live 8 mob stood for violently opposed things. Why did they do this? Possibly these writers resented the fact that musicians who had never had to suffer as they had in studying for economics degrees were now having a significant impact on economic debate. Possibly they cannot see past assumed or superficial political differences. Possibly they enjoy ranting and raving at the expense of others. And possibly it is because they think that conflict and controversy sells papers and that we the consumers expect it of them.
Anyway this is just one of many cases in which the things that unite us are wilfully overlooked for the sake of things on which we differ. The focus in too much politics is in winning an argument (even if it is a fabricated one) rather than in identifying solutions.