It was the story that made me choke on my morning brew. My smooth, best-in-class, Melbourne-made, flat white.

The piece, in case you missed it, written by journalist James Panichi, attempted, unsuccessfully, to make the unmakeable case for why Melbourne’s claim to the coffee crown was “demonstrably false [and] has been willed into existence by marketing spivs”.

Dripping with more bitterness than a Wangaratta truck-stop espresso, Panichi described Melbourne’s coffee as ranging from “unpleasant to the utterly undrinkable”, dismissed our addiction as hype, our passion as pretension.

He also had the gall to argue that Tuscan airport coffee from a paper cup is superior to a finely balanced Melbourne latte. A $2.10 espresso that makes a vodka shot look generous is better value too, apparently. Eppur si muove aside, Panichi.

Let’s start with the value. Italian coffee is known for being microscopic. Even the French think they’re miserly.

A 25 millilitre espresso at that price is not better value than a 200ml Melbourne flat white. If it was the same price per millilitre here as in Italy, we’d be paying almost $17 a cup. And if you dare ask for a seat in the cafe, they’ll jack up the price further. Panichi omits that inconvenient fact of Tuscan life.

And the bitterness of the coffee is clearly designed to counter the smoothness of the milk. Not for espresso.

The piece prompted a wave of impassioned letters and comments.

So who published this outrageous opinion? Well, we did.

Why did you run it if you were so infuriated by this misdirected attack?

An understandable question. We frequently run opinions we disagree with.

The Age’s Opinion section is not a place where we push our own editorial line of personal views on the world. It’s a space we want to serve as an incubator of debate and sensible discussion. A place where people with interesting, thoughtful or entertaining opinions can have their say and challenge our subscribers, without pandering or ideology.

My coffee outrage was confected for rhetorical purposes, I’ll admit (Italian coffee is great too). But the point I am trying to make about running opinions with which we disagree is a serious one. And it applies to the most serious topics we cover.

If we fail to challenge you then, in my view, we fail you.

In a world of algorithms that tell us what we want to hear and social media silos that surround us with like-minded people – I fear tolerance of differing opinions is diminishing. Other publications big and small have taken up the cudgel for one cause or another. To most, dissent is tokenistic at best.

It would be easier, in some ways, to repeatedly run pieces that appeal to the opinions of the majority of our audience or support a particular world view. Many major outlets treat their opinion sections this way. If we joined them, who else would allow a diversity of opinions to appear in their pages, free from partisanship or self-interest?

We aim to keep our commentary diverse and avoid groupthink. It can do more than challenge, however. We also want it to be lively, engaging, heartwarming and thought-provoking.

That’s why we have columnists such as Waleed Aly, Niki Savva, Kylie Moore-Gilbert, Kate Halfpenny, Stephen Bartholomeusz, Shaun Carney, Sean Kelly, Neil Mitchell, George Brandis, Jenna Price and Victoria Devine. And talented staff journalists including Chip Le Grand, Katy Hall, James Massola, Shane Wright, Jacqueline Maley and Peter Hartcher.