Inappropriate Uses of Google Trends

The only really valid part of the linked article is the point about how you can't make sweeping generalizations based on a very small sample size and a (relatively) small trend.

Concluding that people probably know what the EU is while searching very specifically using the phrase "What is the EU" is no more accurate or truthful than concluding that they don't know what the EU is.

The author says at one point, "perhaps we can more likely conclude". Perhaps we can. But perhaps we shouldn't make any conclusions and just stick to the thesis that the press should know better when reporting facts?

Let's face it, the only reason publications turned to Google Trends to show people Googling "What is the EU?" is because it fit the narrative they had out of the gate. I see the good and bad of Brexit (I'd say "remain" has a stronger case if the EU would reform;) yet the more I read from the media, the more I've leaned pro-Brexit, just out of spite. Every article I've read treats those who were pro-Brexit as if they were complete idiots, as if their concerns aren't legitimate. Even if I disagree with someone's policy position doesn't mean I should completely ignore their concerns and write them off as a bunch of idiots.

Absolutely infuriating to listen to and read. Maybe it's my imagination, but the media as a whole has gotten a lot more preachy within the past 6 months. The new trend seems to be "data journalism" in which most people omit numbers to the contrary of a certain world view (Vox literally has been getting a dataset from Reddit on 'mass shootings.' Even the NYTs and MotherJones called them out, to no avail. Not sure how people are letting them off the hook.)

I honestly can connect more with those that were "Leave" on the E.U. now than in the beginning; simply because the media coverage has come off as so elitist.

This is no different from fluff tabloid pieces that say that foods cause cancer. A typical headline might be "Eating chicken every day increases your risk of stomach cancer by 50%!"

Unless they specify absolute numbers, this could be a one in 10 million chance increased to 2.5 in 10 million. Or, it could be 4/10 increased to 6/10.

The battle lines have shifted. It's now nationalism vs. globalism, not conservative vs. liberal. It turns out that the elite, while split between conservatism and liberalism, is firmly in the globalist camp. The people tend to go the other way, especially once the hollow veneer of political correctness is shattered (terrorist attacks, migrant crises, and economic downturns can do that).

You're seeing it in Britain, where Brexit crossed party lines. The people were told they couldn't have a say on immigration or many other aspects of their lives. Britain's cultural identity, their nationhood, would just have to give way over time to a pan-European globalized society. They were told that high-minded technocrats in Brussels, not the British nation, should run their country. It turns out that the common people don't like that deal.

You're seeing it in America. Trump is not running on a policy platform. He's signed up to enough conservative pieties to get the Republican Party behind him, but his whole campaign is really premised on kicking out the ruling elite and restoring government for the interests of the American people, not the establishment and their globalist agenda. Regardless of whether you agree that his policies will accomplish that, there's no denying that that's the core sentiment that he's tapping into. This is the quote that seems to be extremely popular among his supporters: "We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down."

You're seeing it in continental Europe, with nationalist parties pulling supporters from both the establishment conservative and left-wing parties. Marine Le Pen's National Front has a very good chance of winning the election in France next year. Her platform isn't right-wing or left-wing, it's nationalist and seeks to preserve the culture of the French nation, including their social and economic model.

Alternative for Germany (AfD) is gaining rapidly in reaction to the disastrous decision to allow migrants to flood into Germany. They have benefit in the polls at the expense of both the main left and right parties.

The supporters of these movements are unified in one thing: a love for and desire to preserve their nation's culture and values, which they perceive to be under siege from uncontrolled immigration and globalization.

"We just want to preserve our culture" is the loudest racial dog-whistle I know. It's been around since Jim Crow and it looks like it's not going away any time soon.