Why on earth is this framed as a "war against machines"? That's just plain wrong. The machines serve people. If there's a war, it's between people and other people.
Periodically people put forward the notion that there is some community 'good' to be achieved by not taking advantage of this progress. Ned Ludd is probably the most well known example but lots of folks have made similar suggestions over the years. In every example, without exception, that path has lead to stagnation and death of the community that supported it. This truth however does not stop people being displaced by automation to suggest it however, that death will come later to community they are no longer a part of so they don't really care, they only care about the here and now.
Talk to former factory workers of car companies that no longer exist but they successfully kept automation out of those factories. They protected their own jobs, at the expense of killing the company and all future jobs it might create, and ultimately their own pensions took a hit when those companies died.
As a journalist though it is a great way to generate rage views with the dispossessed and the fearful.
Because pointing out the existence of class war is politically incorrect. Most people would sooner admit to a race war than a struggle between the capitalist class and working class.
Let me guess: You're not in the US. Because turning the issue into a battle of rich-versus-poor is exactly what the Occupy Wall Street protests, the President's reelection rhetoric in the last election and the Democratic framing of the present "fiscal cliff" crisis are about.
On a tangential note, "fiscal cliff" is a brilliant term from a certain faction's marketing perspective -- once you describe the situation in that way, you've already committed to embracing a particular conclusion.