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?
posted by Toby @ 3:25:00 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
I just read the three most recent comments:
Socialism is killing us
So with this report, I guess I can't grow my bananas and oranges in my backyard in my Ottawa home?
FreakAlert
And, let's not forget the electro-dollars(hidden tax for keeping warm), going to the provincial governments.
JP
Ha. All you environmentalists who think global warming is an issue. It is just a huge cycle. The arctic will freeze up again, good for another 15 years until we get another cold winter.
I've read that last comment several times and it still boggles the mind...
Toby! I told you weren't a real grad student. If you were you would know that it's not an inverse relationship. The mainstream are, as you put it, 'wackos'. Join the elitist socialists you know you want to....
Post a Comment
<< Home