4 ms·

Do you disagree there's a big implication here? Normally I'd agree with you.

by capote 10y ago

sergiotapia 10y ago
I actually agree that the title is purposefully bait-y and has an implication.
- capote 10y ago
  The title is a pretty clear and accurate summary of what's happening.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    The title implies that a significant number of British people voted to leave the EU without even knowing what it was, and that their opinion is therefore uninformed and should not be respected. You believe that's a "pretty clear and accurate summary"? Even if you do, you at least recognize the bias and that it's not really fitting for a supposedly-neutral news outlet?
    - mtberatwork 10y ago
      Out of curiosity, what would be a better, non-biased headline then? I kind of agree with capote here, the title does summarize the contents of the article.
      - cookiecaper 10y ago
        The entire article is hostile and biased; a biased headline that properly summarizes a biased article is not an accomplishment, it's just more propaganda. First, we have to treat the source with healthy skepticism: Google, like most other large companies, probably wanted the UK to Remain, so they're going to release data that is intended to embarrass the Leave camp since they're bitter over their loss and want to prove that the vote was bad. An article stating that Google claims this is one of the most-asked questions is fine, but it's taken as de-facto true by the WaPo, which is improper. People tend to believe these things, but even results in peer-reviewed studies are totally and completely fabricated with surprising frequency. It certainly happens a lot with unauditable data like Google Trends. Besides being incentivized to embarrass the British people, we also have to assume that Google is squashing various forms of the query into one block: "What is the EU?", "what is eu", "what is the e.u.?", and so on would be logical, but what about just "EU"? Is it counted? Surely many people would type that in to be directed to the official EU home page. Second, even if it is an accurate representation of the search queries in the UK, there is not necessarily heavy correlation between people that voted and people that were asking that question. Many people who cannot or do not vote use Google, especially teenagers that are tech-literate but not yet of age to vote, and they may be seeking to be informed on the monumental decision that others in the UK just made. Third, asking Google a question doesn't necessarily mean you don't know the answer. I often conduct queries for things I already know because I want to find a citation for a specific claim, I want to find a related image, or I want to see what other people think and/or say about the thing. This is pretty typical. For example, my last search was "howard dean yell" to find a link to the clip of Howard Dean's infamous "yeah". I've known about Howard Dean's yell since it happened in 2004. That I searched for this doesn't mean that I was ignorant previously; it just means I was trying to find something concrete. Fourth, the way that Google presents suggested questions can cause people to click the option out of convenience, curiosity, or even just proximity, so we need not assume that every query is sincere or even intentional. So, an unbiased first paragraph of the article would be something like this: American web search company Google has stated that the query "What is the EU?" was among the most searched today, hours after the UK voted to leave the European Union. Compare to the actual first paragraph, which literally says "it seems many Britons may not even know what they had actually voted for." That's open hostility and bias. Aside from all this, there is bias merely in the selection of what to publish, even if the article and headline are written in a seemingly-neutral way. The fact that WaPo is choosing to publicize Google's unverifiable declaration in the first place lets you know where they stand.
    - capote 10y ago
      I recognize bias, and I recognize that I myself am biased. But I also maintain that the title is accurate, and the implications of the bias are reasonable to draw. Whether or not this speaks to the quality of the publication is up to anyone, and I might agree with you if I had read more from the WP in the past. It's a truth that a lot of people are googling things like this inside the UK and the adverb "frantically" I believe reasonably addresses how large the amount of searches is. I also believe that the implication stands solid, that a lot of the Brexit voters had no idea what they voted on, what the implications of a Brexit are, and were largely motivated by things like fear of immigrants, which intellectuals seem to agree is a... not so smart fear to have.
  - sbmassey 10y ago
    I wonder how they measure the franticness of the Googling: Are they sure they aren't just casually Googling about it?
    - capote 10y ago
      Are you saying it's categorically wrong to use subjective adverbs in headlines?
lawpoop 10y ago
I do; my suspicion is that it's people who didn't vote, trying to figure out what will happen in the near future.
- pas 10y ago
  Just FYI, participation was above 70%. ("The referendum turnout was 71.8%, with more than 30 million people voting. It was the highest turnout in a UK-wide vote since the 1992 general election" - BBC) It's pretty safe to bet that a lot of those searches were from people who voted.

Do you disagree there's a big implication here? Normally I'd agree with you.

by capote 10y ago

Do you disagree there's a big implication here? Normally I'd agree with you.

sergiotapia 10y ago

I actually agree that the title is purposefully bait-y and has an implication.

capote 10y ago
The title is a pretty clear and accurate summary of what's happening.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  The title implies that a significant number of British people voted to leave the EU without even knowing what it was, and that their opinion is therefore uninformed and should not be respected. You believe that's a "pretty clear and accurate summary"? Even if you do, you at least recognize the bias and that it's not really fitting for a supposedly-neutral news outlet?
  - mtberatwork 10y ago
    Out of curiosity, what would be a better, non-biased headline then? I kind of agree with capote here, the title does summarize the contents of the article.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      The entire article is hostile and biased; a biased headline that properly summarizes a biased article is not an accomplishment, it's just more propaganda. First, we have to treat the source with healthy skepticism: Google, like most other large companies, probably wanted the UK to Remain, so they're going to release data that is intended to embarrass the Leave camp since they're bitter over their loss and want to prove that the vote was bad. An article stating that Google claims this is one of the most-asked questions is fine, but it's taken as de-facto true by the WaPo, which is improper. People tend to believe these things, but even results in peer-reviewed studies are totally and completely fabricated with surprising frequency. It certainly happens a lot with unauditable data like Google Trends. Besides being incentivized to embarrass the British people, we also have to assume that Google is squashing various forms of the query into one block: "What is the EU?", "what is eu", "what is the e.u.?", and so on would be logical, but what about just "EU"? Is it counted? Surely many people would type that in to be directed to the official EU home page. Second, even if it is an accurate representation of the search queries in the UK, there is not necessarily heavy correlation between people that voted and people that were asking that question. Many people who cannot or do not vote use Google, especially teenagers that are tech-literate but not yet of age to vote, and they may be seeking to be informed on the monumental decision that others in the UK just made. Third, asking Google a question doesn't necessarily mean you don't know the answer. I often conduct queries for things I already know because I want to find a citation for a specific claim, I want to find a related image, or I want to see what other people think and/or say about the thing. This is pretty typical. For example, my last search was "howard dean yell" to find a link to the clip of Howard Dean's infamous "yeah". I've known about Howard Dean's yell since it happened in 2004. That I searched for this doesn't mean that I was ignorant previously; it just means I was trying to find something concrete. Fourth, the way that Google presents suggested questions can cause people to click the option out of convenience, curiosity, or even just proximity, so we need not assume that every query is sincere or even intentional. So, an unbiased first paragraph of the article would be something like this: American web search company Google has stated that the query "What is the EU?" was among the most searched today, hours after the UK voted to leave the European Union. Compare to the actual first paragraph, which literally says "it seems many Britons may not even know what they had actually voted for." That's open hostility and bias. Aside from all this, there is bias merely in the selection of what to publish, even if the article and headline are written in a seemingly-neutral way. The fact that WaPo is choosing to publicize Google's unverifiable declaration in the first place lets you know where they stand.
  - capote 10y ago
    I recognize bias, and I recognize that I myself am biased. But I also maintain that the title is accurate, and the implications of the bias are reasonable to draw. Whether or not this speaks to the quality of the publication is up to anyone, and I might agree with you if I had read more from the WP in the past. It's a truth that a lot of people are googling things like this inside the UK and the adverb "frantically" I believe reasonably addresses how large the amount of searches is. I also believe that the implication stands solid, that a lot of the Brexit voters had no idea what they voted on, what the implications of a Brexit are, and were largely motivated by things like fear of immigrants, which intellectuals seem to agree is a... not so smart fear to have.
- sbmassey 10y ago
  I wonder how they measure the franticness of the Googling: Are they sure they aren't just casually Googling about it?
  - capote 10y ago
    Are you saying it's categorically wrong to use subjective adverbs in headlines?

lawpoop 10y ago

I do; my suspicion is that it's people who didn't vote, trying to figure out what will happen in the near future.

pas 10y ago
Just FYI, participation was above 70%. ("The referendum turnout was 71.8%, with more than 30 million people voting. It was the highest turnout in a UK-wide vote since the 1992 general election" - BBC) It's pretty safe to bet that a lot of those searches were from people who voted.