[sokoloff]

Wow. That's a quite telling chart (and it's insane to me to think that 5% of total print articles would cover immigration).

[gcanyon]

At first glance, sure, but without further context or supporting data I'm suspicious:

   1. Why just the Daily Mail? Is that the only paper that matters in Britain, or just the one that happens to correlate?
   2. I would expect public opinion to lag coverage in the paper if there were a causal relationship. This graph is over too great a period to really see that, but if the creator wants to convince me, they'd show that.
   3. I might expect the lag to differ when coverage is increasing vs. decreasing. Again, if I'm to believe this graph, more context would help.
   4. No consideration of other factors that might lead to changes in public concern?
   5. No consideration of factors that might lead to *both* an increase in coverage *and* an increase in concern?

I'm sure I could come up with 5 more reasons to doubt this graph if I thought for another 60 seconds...

[throwaway598]

I'd expect these series to be cointegrated. A chart or OLS isn't going to prove chicken or egg.

[thsksbd]

Why is it telling? That's true for everything the media covers.

[sokoloff]

> That's true for everything the media covers.

You believe this. (I also tend to believe it.) But why do we believe it? Are we basing that belief on data? Or on conjecture?

This chart is the first one I've seen that starkly lays out an argument based on data that this effect exists.

[thsksbd]

You don't need data to know something. Sometimes, data helps.

[sokoloff]

Indeed. I can plainly know that the Earth is flat just by looking out the window.

[CapitalistCartr]

It's not news, it's the Daily Mail.