Beyond Media Bias: The Hidden Problem of Unverified Information

Wedgewood Polls, a polling group trusted by major news organizations like Newsweek (Center bias), the Washington Examiner (Lean Right bias), and The New York Times (Lean Left bias), admitted it had fabricated polling information, claiming it was an experiment.

In a post made on X, Wedgewood Polls said, “The polling industry needs major reforms” and shared a statement announcing they are “an experimental project to demonstrate the vulnerabilities, lack of oversight, and overall low barrier to entry in the modern political polling industry.” According to a blog published by research organization FiftyPlusOne, Wedgewood’s admission came only after the research organization reached out as part of an investigation into the firm’s data.

The scandal reveals the precariousness of our digital media ecosystem, where information spreads faster than anyone can bother to verify it. But the solution to a world of unverifiable information isn’t a new authority that tells people what’s true: it’s better tools for everyone to evaluate information for themselves.

A History of Phony Data

• Fake Polling Firm Duped Media in 'Social Experiment' | Newsweek (Center) 
• Democrats furious after pollster boosting far-left candidate | Fox News (Right)
• An alleged national pollster says it faked its data as a 'social experiment.' Here's what to know | PBS (Lean Left)

This is not the first time polling data has turned out to be phony. In August 2026, several outlets, including The New York Times and FiftyPlusOne, declined to aggregate polls from another polling company, Median Strategies, because it did not disclose information such as how its polls were conducted or who sponsored it.

According to Associated Press (Lean Left bias), Median Strategies did not respond to questions from the New York Times and FiftyPlusOne, and then later announced on its website, which has since been removed, that the operation was a “short-term social experiment examining how purported polling information could enter and spread through the political information ecosystem without independent verification.”

Did Fabricated Polls Impact Elections?

On social media, some shared concerns about the real-world impact of faulty information. In a post on X shared Oct. 20, former Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Mallory McMorrow shared the impact she felt fake polling had on her campaign. She reported that “donations dried up,” “volunteers were devastated and pleading for guidance on what to do,” and “reporters hounded me with calls to drop out.”

Notably, this is the first major election cycle in which prediction markets have gone mainstream, and this changes the stakes for polling integrity. A new survey supported by the Brennan Center found that prediction market bets are shifting voter’s views of which candidates are electable. That means faulty polling data can influence prediction markets — and subsequently, voters' views of candidates — significantly.

Plus, when fake polls enter the ecosystem, the potential for financial manipulation follows. Someone could deliberately manufacture polling data to move prediction-market prices and profit from the resulting price changes.

With real money on the line, the appetite for data grows faster than our ability to verify it. Fake polls don’t just mislead voters — they create a financial incentive for fraud that didn’t exist a year ago.

Beyond Media Bias: The Hidden Problem of Unverified Information.

At AllSides, we’re often asked why we rate media bias, but not accuracy. The reason is this: we don’t believe any organization should position itself as the ultimate arbiter of truth — including us. No entity is infallible, and critical thinking can’t be outsourced to any organization or AI system.

But that doesn’t mean all information is equally trustworthy. What Wedgewood exposed isn’t just a polling problem, it’s a systems problem. When information can be created and distributed faster than it can be reviewed, the question isn’t just, Is this information biased? It’s, Is this information even real? And how can we defend ourselves from fabricated and manipulative information?

Wedgewood Polls and Median Strategies both announced their experiment shortly after other organizations started asking the right questions. This is a skill anyone can learn.

While it would be ideal for news consumers to be able to rely on institutions to present only accurate, credible, verified information, it's no longer the age that we live in. News consumers need to learn to ask particular questions when they encounter information in the news and on social media, such as: 

• Transparency: Who is behind the information? Can I trace it back to its source?
• Methodology: How was the information gathered and analyzed?
• Bias: What perspective or incentive is shaping how the information is being presented
• Accountability: Who is responsible for the information, and how are errors identified and corrected?

AllSides doesn’t just help people spot political bias — we model the broader habits of information literacy that help people evaluate any source, on any topic. That's why we make our bias rating methodology, editorial philosophy, news curation principles, and ownership details publicly available — because trust has to be earned, not assumed.

The lesson of the Wedgewood scandal isn't necessarily that we should stop trusting polls, journalists, or institutions. It's that trust without transparency and accountability leaves everyone vulnerable.

We don't need another institution telling us what to believe. We need better tools, stronger standards, and the critical thinking skills to evaluate information for ourselves.