"Wedgewood Polls" just announced it was a FAKE POLLSTER and was listed in outlets like the NYT and MSNOW
- Thread starter ziggy
- Start date
Should we be surprised the FAKE news would regurgitate this bullshit? Not I.
ziggy
Verified User
A pollster now admitted to be FRAUDULENT caused Chuck Schumer to pour over $1.2 MILLION DOLLARS into the Mississippi Senate race after "Wedgewood Polls" found the race "competitive..."
Oct. 14: "Poll" drops showing only R+4
> Dems think MS can go blue
> Oct. 20: Schumer PAC confirms "first major investment" of $1.2M into red Mississippi after previously making zero investment
> Wedgewood admits to being fraudulent
View: https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/2112723064555180300
Oct. 14: "Poll" drops showing only R+4
> Dems think MS can go blue
> Oct. 20: Schumer PAC confirms "first major investment" of $1.2M into red Mississippi after previously making zero investment
> Wedgewood admits to being fraudulent
View: https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/2112723064555180300
ziggy
Verified User
Wedgewood launched its poll this summer and was soon suspected. The NYTimes, for example, added this to its reports of Wedewood polling numbers: “This pollster does not meet our criteria for selected pollsters.”
A few days ago the company was directly confronted with an accusation of fraud which it has now admitted. It did not reveal itself, in other words, it was exposed not long after it started.
www.newsweek.com
A few days ago the company was directly confronted with an accusation of fraud which it has now admitted. It did not reveal itself, in other words, it was exposed not long after it started.
Fake polling firm duped media in ‘social experiment’
Wedgewood Polls said the deception was intended to establish how easily a fictitious polling company could obtain recognition.
www.newsweek.com
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
This is a common way those who are looking at the veracity of a system by producing fraudulent data, papers, etc., get found out. Someone in the 'know' lets it slip and the jig is up. The NYT likely didn't discover this on their own but rather had someone say something who knew Wedgewood was a false flag.Wedgewood launched its poll this summer and was soon suspected. The NYTimes, for example, added this to its reports of Wedewood polling numbers: “This pollster does not meet our criteria for selected pollsters.”
A few days ago the company was directly confronted with an accusation of fraud which it has now admitted. It did not reveal itself, in other words, it was exposed not long after it started.
Fake polling firm duped media in ‘social experiment’
Wedgewood Polls said the deception was intended to establish how easily a fictitious polling company could obtain recognition.
It wouldn't be the first time some serious group of "experts" was fooled, and it won't be the last. All it does is call into question the veracity of all polling for scrutiny.
ziggy
Verified User
During this election season, there has been a significant surge in entirely Fake Polls and Suppression Polls designed to do nothing more than interfere with the regular functioning of the electoral process and alter the normal patterns of voter turnout and enthusiasm.
Many journalists and broadcasters have been amplifying or airing these Polls without regard to basic journalistic ethics and without informing the public that those Polls lack a scientific, accurate, or even real basis.
The FCC takes these issues seriously. Broadcasters are prohibited by the terms of their federal licenses from engaging in News Distortion or promoting Broadcast Hoaxes. It is important that broadcasters comply with their public interest obligations. After all, the country benefits greatly when Americans can trust and rely on the media to report the news fairly and accurately.
Broadcasters are advised to avoid engaging in News Distortions or running Broadcast Hoaxes by airing Polls that would violate their regulatory obligations. If broadcasters believe they should provide their viewers with additional context and information about Polls they have covered, they can now take those actions consistent with FCC regulations.
View: https://x.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/2112913475705934326
Many journalists and broadcasters have been amplifying or airing these Polls without regard to basic journalistic ethics and without informing the public that those Polls lack a scientific, accurate, or even real basis.
The FCC takes these issues seriously. Broadcasters are prohibited by the terms of their federal licenses from engaging in News Distortion or promoting Broadcast Hoaxes. It is important that broadcasters comply with their public interest obligations. After all, the country benefits greatly when Americans can trust and rely on the media to report the news fairly and accurately.
Broadcasters are advised to avoid engaging in News Distortions or running Broadcast Hoaxes by airing Polls that would violate their regulatory obligations. If broadcasters believe they should provide their viewers with additional context and information about Polls they have covered, they can now take those actions consistent with FCC regulations.
View: https://x.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/2112913475705934326
The NYTimes didn't discover it at all. The editors were not furnished with the "criteria" the paper normally requires for pollsters it publishes, so it included the disclaimer. It was another firm that smoked out the fraud.
Question polls all you want. If they didn't have a long history of accuracy within their published margins of error we wouldn't be talking about them all the time.
Brendan Carr, huh. Speaking of fake.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
So, the NYT added a disclaimer and then went ahead and used the data. Their disclaimer is meaningless in that case. Now, if they published two sets of results, one with the questionable data and one without for comparison, they might have some credibility there.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
"The News" has been lying about polls to sway elections for years now.
I remember back in the day when it was Gallup polls and..oh damn, what's his name?
I give up on his name.
Very Serious man. Ralph Nader!
Last edited:
The paper didn't "use the data". It published a list of polls, naming the pollsters along their posting numbers but with this pollster included the disclaimer. It's that kind of caution that helps give the Times its credibility.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
Yeah, "anonymous sources say" does too.
we have talked plenty about other bulllshit polling firms that are new, and have no track record
like this one
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I understood that they aggregated those polls like other places that used them did.
Punxsutawney Phil is as accurate as most of them.
Periodically the times has been running a column listing a number of individual polls. They also aggregate some polls but "weight" them, giving more weight to highly rated pollsters. Don't know if a new pollster already downgraded by the paper would be included at all.