Listen to the article
The morning after Election Day in 2020 sparked a disinformation crisis that would haunt journalists for years to come. A simple data visualization published by FiveThirtyEight, intended to track vote counting in Wisconsin, inadvertently became ammunition for election fraud conspiracy theories that continue to circulate today.
The chart showed vote totals over time in Wisconsin, where both candidates’ numbers increased as ballots were counted. However, social media users quickly misinterpreted the visual, claiming it represented a suspicious overnight “vote dump” that miraculously pushed Biden ahead of Trump.
“I remember panicking,” said Laura Bronner, FiveThirtyEight’s quantitative editor who created the chart. “I remember having conversations about, ‘What do we do given that this is being misinterpreted?'”
The context surrounding the 2020 election created a perfect storm for such misinterpretations. The COVID-19 pandemic had dramatically altered voting patterns, with Democrats more likely to vote by mail while Republicans favored in-person voting on Election Day. Election experts had predicted this would create what some called a “red mirage” – early returns would favor Trump before mail-in ballots were tallied.
News organizations, including FiveThirtyEight, had attempted to prepare voters for this scenario, explaining that results would take days to finalize and that leads might shift as different types of ballots were counted. But these warnings failed to prevent widespread misinterpretations – and in some cases, actually fueled conspiracy theories.
The Wisconsin chart captured a significant batch of absentee ballots from Milwaukee being added to the data on the morning of November 4. Urban areas typically lean Democratic, so this added a substantial number of votes for Biden while also increasing Trump’s total. The visualization showed both candidates’ totals rising, but observers focused solely on Biden’s surge.
FiveThirtyEight responded quickly with explanatory blog posts, social media clarifications, and even a video featuring Bronner explaining the chart’s actual meaning. Fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact also debunked claims that the chart showed evidence of fraud.
But the damage was done. The visual had already been stripped of its context and transformed into a symbol of the “stolen election” narrative that would define post-election politics for years.
“Throughout the election cycle, they had been hearing that the election was going to be stolen,” explained Renée DiResta, a social media researcher and Georgetown University professor. “So evidence was picked to fit the frame that they had been hearing.”
Data visualizations are particularly vulnerable to misuse. Many people lack training in reading charts properly, yet visualizations carry an aura of objective authority that text doesn’t command.
“Data is just seen as so objective,” noted Maxim Lisnic, a University of Utah Ph.D. student studying disinformation in visualizations. “A lot of people do resist further nuanced explanations, because they say, ‘Well, the chart’s there. The data is telling me something.'”
Lisnic’s research found that even well-designed, accurate visualizations can be weaponized through misinterpretation. Users employ logical fallacies or selective reading to support predetermined narratives.
Today, simplified and inaccurate versions of the FiveThirtyEight chart appear on merchandise promoting election fraud theories. The visual has been transformed from a data journalism tool into a potent symbol that transcends its original meaning.
Could journalists have prevented this? Lisa Fazio, a Vanderbilt University psychology professor who studies false beliefs, suggests media outlets ask themselves how content might be misread before publishing. Simple design adjustments, like ensuring overlapping lines remain visible, might help.
But Bronner remains skeptical that any precautions would have been sufficient against determined misinterpretation. “I think what is hard is to guard yourself against willful misinterpretation and bad-faith attempts at misusing information you put out there,” she said. “There is no way to put out information without putting out information that could potentially be misused.”
The FiveThirtyEight chart saga serves as a sobering reminder for journalists in the disinformation age. Even the most carefully produced content can be weaponized when audiences are primed to distrust institutions and seek confirmation for preexisting beliefs.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
The “red mirage” phenomenon you describe makes a lot of sense given the shift to mail-in voting. It’s concerning to see how quickly that data was misconstrued for political gain. Journalists really have their work cut out for them in the disinformation age.
Absolutely. Diligent fact-checking and highlighting the proper context around election data is so vital to combat the spread of misinformation. The public deserves reliable, unbiased information.
The creator’s sense of panic is understandable. It’s alarming how quickly a benign data visualization can be co-opted for disinformation. This highlights the huge challenges journalists and data experts face in the current information landscape.
Absolutely. As data becomes more accessible, the potential for misuse also grows. Responsible data presentation and active debunking of misinformation are critical to maintaining public trust.
This is a concerning example of how easily data can be misinterpreted and weaponized, even with the best of intentions. The creator’s experience shows the real-world consequences of inadequate context and the urgent need for media literacy.
Agreed. Disinformation can spread like wildfire, even from relatively innocuous sources. Upholding journalistic integrity and equipping the public with the tools to critically evaluate information are essential in this era of data manipulation.
Interesting how a simple data visualization can be so easily misused for disinformation. The chart creator must have been concerned to see it twisted to fit conspiracy theories. Transparency and context are so important when presenting election data.
I agree, this highlights the need for clear, responsible data presentation to avoid confusion and misinterpretation. Fact-checking and providing proper context is crucial.
This is a prime example of how easily data can be twisted and manipulated, even with something as seemingly straightforward as a vote count chart. Responsible data presentation is crucial to maintain public trust in the electoral process.
Agreed. Nuance and context are easily lost online, so it’s crucial for media outlets to be extremely careful in how they present election-related data and visuals. Fact-checking and transparency should be top priorities.