So what you're saying is if PopSci writes an article on the harmful effects of smoking, and there are some comments underneath from cranks disputing it, that the readers will not give PopSci more of the benefit of the doubt and not be more skeptical of the commenters?
I didn't think of this point of view. I see lot of pseudo-scientific BS in facebook . But if there's only one positive thing that people should do, is at least think a minimum , and not accept blindly all information from "experts" , especially the ones related to public health.
I've been searching on the popsci website, and this article at least seems "pro gmo":
With the conclusion :
"Elle seems to have passed right by it into conspiracy theory territory."
Sorry, but today the word conspiracy is used a bit too easily to discredit anyone.
And first comment :
"Guys Wake Up,
GMOs can definitely cause harmful side-effects.."