inverse relationship

We were having a discussion the other day in class about politics and the internet, and whether it is worth it to enter into political debates online. Does anyone ever change their mind based on what they read on the internet?

I have a personal theory about online political discussions. It seems that, for news sites, the level of debate is inversely proportional to the reputation of the site. I have found some very interesting and intriguing comments on a number of the political blogs I read, both liberal and conservative.

On the other hand, I just read this article on CTV, predicting that Canada will likely face a very cold winter. With trepidation I scrolled down to see the predictable "Cold winter! Global warming is a hoax! All Chretien's fault!" comments. Had this been the Globe and Mail, the comments would have basically been drooling lunacy, generally recommending tin foil hats. Why do the wackos go to the traditional mainstream media sites? Shouldn't they be hanging out on their 'special' sites? Isn't that what the internet is for?

Colbert would be proud

Paul Wells writes about Conservapedia, which he is not making up.

You will find that all 9 of the top articles are about homosexuality, and the main entry on homosexuality has 81% of the traffic of the main page. Yikes.