The trouble with news reports is that they have a duty to give equal time to views on both/all sides of a question, even though neutral research into actual data may have shown more weight to one side than to the other. By the time the research report has been "analysed" by several experts, each with an agenda that leans in one direction or the other, ordinary mortals are more confused that ever. No wonder opinions are heavily biassed by emotions and by worries about sovereignty.
An important consideration is the effect on the prosperity of the country and hence security of employment. Businesses of all sizes have to estimate the impact on their company and the risks from potential change - and then make their survival plans, which may involve moving away.
Comparison with the Scottish Independence campaign could be valuable.
Douglas Fraser Business/economy editor, Scotland, said in an article on 17 February How business votes: from indyref to Brexit -:-
"Broadcasters are obliged to provide due impartiality, and the BBC's guidelines require a "broad balance" of views.
What that meant in practice in 2014 was that two sides of every facet of debate should have been given equal airtime. A lot of effort went into ensuring that they were.
So while "politically neutral research" showed business figures were much more weighted to the risks than the opportunities from Scottish independence, this isn't how it looked:
"Media coverage presented it frequently as being '50-50', when the reality was closer to '90-10', say MacKay and Kelly. "The media can thus have a well-intentioned distorting influence on public perception."
Well, at least they think we were well-intentioned. Not everyone has been that charitable.