Crimeupdated 1h ago2 min read
Wedgewood Polls Admits Fabricating Election Surveys, New York Times Removes 15 Polls
This article is an automated aggregation of coverage from news outlets. Our editorials offer in-depth analysis curated by the NewsCord team.
Wedgewood Polls admits fabricating data used in surveys carried by major media. Firm labels deception a 'social experiment' to expose polling verification gaps.
Save coverage image
Where the coverage agrees
Directory totals describe our source library, not outlets checked for this story.
Fabricated surveys admitted
Wedgewood Polls admitted it used fabricated numbers in election surveys, describing the operation as an "experimental project" to demonstrate "fabricated numbers" and what it called vulnerabilities and low oversight in political polling.
FiftyPlusOne reached out to Wedgewood Polls on Oct. 20 for comment on an investigation, and it said Wedgewood instead posted a public statement on social media admitting it had been fabricating data.
FiftyPlusOne added that Wedgewood posted a direct message minutes before publishing its memo that included the phrase "Fuck you," plus the name of an individual not affiliated with FiftyPlusOne.
The New York Times removed 15 Wedgewood polls from its poll tracking project after it included the Wedgewood polls "after the pollster answered a series of detailed questions" about identities, methods and funding.
Damage to campaigns
Mallory McMorrow said a Wedgewood survey showed her support collapsing into single digits and that the result contributed to donations drying up, volunteers becoming demotivated, and reporters "hounded" her with calls to drop out of the race. McMorrow said on X that "Trust is already at an all-time low" and that the public "needs to take a hard look at what’s legitimate and what’s not."
Decision Desk HQ said it removed 17 Wedgewood polls from its race-level polling lists and averages, while also saying it had not changed its projected congressional seat totals or probabilities of party control. Wedgewood said it was "never intended to sway an election" and instead aimed as a "wake-up call" about data integrity and vetting standards.
Who vetted, who didn’t
FiftyPlusOne obtained Wedgewood’s raw data for its Mississippi Senate survey and confronted the firm after it identified discrepancies in the data and checked with Pollfish. FiftyPlusOne was able to independently confirm that Sims had previous experience in the polling industry after Wedgewood provided two names, Jack Sims and Andrew Prater, when FiftyPlusOne asked who they were.
Wedgewood’s statement said its "fabricated numbers were given instant credibility across national media platforms" and that the ease of absorption highlighted what it called a systemic breakdown in media vetting and data aggregation. The New York Times said Wedgewood asked, "How easy is it for an entirely fabricated polling firm to gain traction" and it answered, "The short answer: Far too easy."