[jarrett]

For any given fringe view that the media properly marginalizes, some people will go on believing it. But that doesn't mean the number of believers (or undecided people) will stay the same. It's quite possible, and in my view probable, that reducing airtime from fringe views will substantially reduce the number of people who hold or lean towards those views.

[Karunamon]

You're at least partly right, but I would argue the conspiracy types are already well acquainted with "alternative" news sources (infowars, Coast to Coast, random bloggers...).

Additionally, (and this is just a personal feeling), but something about top-down "reducing airtime from fringe views" feels very wrong. Who decides what a "fringe view" is? By that rubric, Creationism is perfectly legitimate since it's widely held.

I think we'd all be better served, morally as well as practically, by letting the loons be loons and let people make their own decisions rather then trying to explicitly control who gets airtime. Bring on the denier and let them get annihilated in a debate against someone who knows what they're talking about. This has the benefit of not invoking censorship boogeymen (which may or may not actually exist) and doesn't hand over the "we're being oppressed" card to them.

[7952]

Climate change scepticism is not a fringe view, but moderately widely held. It is hard to believe that those people will suddenly support environmentally literate policy. They will just switch to a different set of trite anecdotes to prove why nothing should change.

[tonfa]

> Climate change scepticism is not a fringe view, but moderately widely held.

Is it true for the US? That's definitely not my impression for Europe, it always looked to me that was a belief from a tiny minority.

[jarrett]

> Climate change scepticism is not a fringe view, but moderately widely held

Amongst 1) the general public, 2) scientists in general, or 3) climate scientists specifically?