The short version
- Wedgewood Polling stated that its recent survey results were fabricated to demonstrate how easily fake data can gain traction in political discourse.
- Major news aggregators removed the data after scrutiny, though they defended their initial vetting processes which included direct outreach to the firm.
- Regulators and statisticians have expressed skepticism about the experiment narrative, citing suspicious timing and potential regulatory violations by broadcasters.
A national polling organization known as Wedgewood Polling has disclosed that the vast majority of its recent data was fabricated. The firm described the release of false results as an experimental project designed to highlight vulnerabilities within the modern political polling industry and the lack of scrutiny applied by media outlets. This admission came after significant questioning from FiftyPlusOne, a site dedicated to polling and election analysis, regarding the veracity of Wedgewood’s reported figures.
Wedgewood Polling stated on social media that its goal was to test how easily an entirely fabricated entity could gain credibility and influence public commentary. The organization claimed that the ease with which unverified figures were absorbed into mainstream political narratives reveals a systemic breakdown in data aggregation and media vetting. Following the disclosure, major news organizations including The New York Times and FiftyPlusOne removed Wedgewood’s data from their databases. Other outlets such as MS NOW, Newsweek, Decision Desk HQ, and Mediaite had also cited the polls prior to their removal.
The timing of the admission has drawn sharp criticism from experts in the field. Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics and political science at Columbia University, questioned the firm’s claim that the fabrication was always intended as an experiment. He noted the suspicious nature of releasing such a statement on the exact day the firm faced exposure for its inaccurate data. This skepticism is compounded by the fact that Wedgewood Polling had previously been flagged by independent investigators who raised concerns about its legitimacy months before this public revelation.
Prior to the admission, Straight Arrow News and Urban Milwaukee had published reports questioning the reliability of Wedgewood Polling. Bruce Murphy, a columnist for Urban Milwaukee, described the organization as a shady outfit in July and August. He pointed out discrepancies between Wedgewood’s results and other established polls, specifically noting a survey that showed Democratic gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong with thirty percent support in Wisconsin, despite other indicators suggesting she had far less backing. Hong ultimately lost the primary election.
Investigative reports also highlighted the lack of transparency surrounding Wedgewood Polling’s operations. The firm’s website did not list employee names, phone numbers, or physical addresses. When contacted by Straight Arrow News, the organization confirmed it was a two-person shop but declined to reveal the identities of its operators or appear on camera. The firm cited recent concerns surrounding other fraudulent polling groups, such as Median Strategies, as a reason for maintaining anonymity. Median Strategies had previously admitted to faking results as part of a similar social experiment.
FiftyPlusOne and The New York Times pushed back against Wedgewood’s implication that they aggregated data without proper verification. Both organizations stated that they had reached out to the polling firm with specific questions about its methodology and legitimacy before including its results in their databases. FiftyPlusOne noted that it confirmed Jack Sims, one of the individuals running the firm, had previous polling experience. The site argued that it is not unusual for pollsters to leave existing firms, form new ones, and self-fund surveys to build a reputation, stating they had no reason at the time to suspect this case was different.
The incident has prompted regulatory attention regarding broadcast standards. Brendan Carr, head of the Federal Communications Commission, stated that television networks could violate their regulatory obligations by airing fake polls. He advised broadcasters to avoid engaging in news distortions or running broadcast hoaxes. Carr claimed there had been a significant surge in entirely fake and suppression polls during the current election season, although he did not cite specific evidence or particular polls to support this broader claim.
The potential real-world impact of such fabricated data is illustrated by the experience of Mallory McMorrow, a Democratic state senator in Michigan. She suspended her campaign for U.S. Senate in July, roughly a month before the primary election which was won by progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed. McMorrow detailed on social media how she believed Wedgewood’s experiment affected her campaign trajectory. The case underscores the difficulties candidates and analysts face when trying to distinguish between legitimate polling data and manipulated information designed to influence perceptions of electoral viability.
As the dust settles on this revelation, the broader implications for political journalism remain under scrutiny. The incident raises questions about the responsibility of news aggregators to verify sources beyond surface-level credentials. While Wedgewood Polling frames its actions as a necessary stress test for the industry, critics argue that the damage caused by misleading data cannot be easily undone. The firm’s website now displays an error message, and its social media presence has been largely silent since the initial statement, leaving many questions about the extent of the fabrication unanswered.
Moving forward, media organizations are likely to face increased pressure to implement more rigorous verification protocols for polling data. The ease with which Wedgewood Polling gained traction suggests that current safeguards may be insufficient against sophisticated disinformation campaigns. Whether this incident leads to lasting changes in how political data is reported and consumed remains to be seen, but it has certainly exposed significant weaknesses in the ecosystem of election analysis.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- PBS NewsHour↗A company says its polls were fake. Here's what happened
