Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Culture & entertainment fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about culture & entertainment. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

3,169 published reviews in this topic

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaCulture & entertainment

FACT CHECK: මේ ඉන්නේ නාඩගම්කාරයෝ රත්නෙ ම ද?

Publisher’s rating: Satire

The review examines a social-media post pairing a photograph of a girl with an image of Rathne from the television drama Nadagamkarayo, and asking viewers to treat them as the same person. It reports that the post was shared with a joking caption, but that some people questioned the comparison. The review identifies the girl as Amandi Madanayake, not Rathne. To check the identification, the review says it examined photographs of the 2020 A-level top performers and found that the girl in the post was Amandi, who placed first nationally in the commerce stream. It also says the photograph of Rathne used in the post could be found among images published on the Nadagamkarayo Facebook page. The review identifies the actor playing Rathne as Sharadh Chanduma. The review concludes that the post misleadingly used Amandi’s photograph while presenting it as Rathne’s, and characterizes the post as satire. Its account supports a distinction between the student in the photograph and the actor’s character; it does not present them as the same person.

Fact CrescendoCulture & entertainment

Claim: Actor Ajith not donated Rs 2.50 crore for Covid 19 relief fund

Publisher’s rating: False

The review examines social-media posts claiming that actor Ajith donated Rs 2.50 crore to the Tamil Nadu government’s Covid-19 relief fund. It says the posts paired reports from several Tamil media outlets with a caption identifying Ajith as the donor. The investigation’s conclusion is that Ajith donated Rs 25 lakh, not Rs 2.50 crore: “நடிகர் அஜித் வழங்கியது ரூ.25 லட்சம் மட்டுமே.” The review attributes the inflated figure to an error in a Tamil Nadu government press release. It says media outlets reported the larger amount after relying on that release, and that readers then shared those reports as confirmation. The article describes a subsequent clarification from Ajith’s manager, Suresh Chandra, who shared a tweet and an amended government release; it also says a DMK statement independently gave the donation as Rs 25 lakh. Thus, the evidence presented distinguishes the actual donation from the erroneous figure that circulated online. The review points to the corrected government communication, the manager’s clarification, and the DMK statement as support for the lower amount, and says the claim of a Rs 2.50 crore donation arose from the initial reporting error rather than the corrected account.

Vishvas NewsCulture & entertainment

বলিউড অ্যাক্টর নসিরুদ্দীন শাহের নামে আরো একবার নকল টুইট ভাইরাল হয়েছে। এটাকে সত্য বলে মনে করে অন্য ইউজারাও এটাকে ভাইরাল করছে। আমাদের তদন্তে এটা নকল বলে প্রমাণিত হয়েছে।

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

TheJournal.ieCulture & entertainment

Darkness into Light is cancelled

Publisher’s rating: False

The claim concerned the 2021 Darkness into Light event, scheduled for 8 May, and whether it had been cancelled. The review reports that Pieta House confirmed the event was going ahead, but in a format changed from previous years to follow Covid-19 distancing guidelines. Rather than gathering in organised walks across the country, participants could choose when and where to take part, including walking, swimming, biking or marking sunrise at home. The review’s central distinction is that changing the format and not holding organised walks did not mean the event itself was cancelled. The confusion arose alongside promotion of a separate, rival gathering. RiseUp Éireann’s post said the event would not take place “as they would each year,” then invited people to make an alternative event happen and said it would not be called Darkness into Light. A separate Twitter account explicitly asked “Darkness into Light cancelled?” while promoting its own gathering. The review says Pieta House had no connection or affiliation with that alternative event. The review cites direct confirmation from the organiser, including an email stating the event “will be going ahead on 8 May,” and quotes Pieta House urging people to sign up and participate in its adapted event. It also reports that Ivor Cummins deleted a tweet claiming the event had been cancelled after users challenged its accuracy, saying he would check whether it was in error. These details support the conclusion that the charity’s event was proceeding in an adapted form, while the rival gathering was separate.

dpaCulture & entertainment

Batman existait vraiment. Il s'appelait Bill Smith.

Publisher’s rating: Batman n’a jamais existé. Cette photo est un montage pour valider l’histoire inventée d’un site satirique, Suffolk Gazette, il y a quatre ans.

The claim says that Batman existed in real life as Bill Smith, a man from Suffolk who moved to New York in 1870, pursued criminals at night and had a young assistant called Robin. The review examines both that story and the bearded, leather-masked man’s photograph presented with it. It reports that an image search found the picture circulating widely in Spain and Latin America, and that a Mexican news site had repeated the story while citing an alleged Suffolk Gazette investigation. The key omitted context is that Suffolk Gazette is a satirical outlet. The review says its presentation page states that its stories are invented and invites readers to laugh when someone believes what it has published. It also reports that the outlet mocked the Mexican article for taking its story seriously. In a Facebook post quoted in the review, Suffolk Gazette described the Batman account as a story it had published four years earlier and said it had made the story up and used a photomontage. Thus, the material cited to support the supposed historical identity traces back to a satirical invention, while the photograph is described as manipulated—not as evidence of a real Batman. The review identifies the original Suffolk Gazette article as dating to 2016 and the Mexican article as published online on 9 July 2020.

FACTLYCulture & entertainment

Last interview video of late Aaj Tak journalist Rohit Sardana

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns a video circulating as the last interview of Aaj Tak journalist Rohit Sardana. FACTLY reports that Sardana died on 30 April 2021, and says the circulated footage instead shows a reporter becoming emotional while discussing India’s COVID-19 crisis. Its identification of the reporter is central to checking the claim: FACTLY names him as independent journalist Navin Kumar, who worked with Article 19 in Delhi, not Sardana. FACTLY describes two checks of the footage. It says reverse-image searches of screenshots from the circulated video led to an extended version on Article 19’s Facebook page, where the same visuals appear from 1:52. In that recording, the person introduces himself as Navin Kumar. FACTLY also says it compared photographs of Sardana with the person in the video and found they were different people. The review adds a direct account from Dr. Sonu Kumar Bharadwaj, one of the doctors interviewed in the recording. As relayed by FACTLY, Bharadwaj said his friend Naveen Kumar recorded the video and that he was one of the doctors being interviewed. Taken together, the described footage provenance, self-identification, visual comparison and interviewee’s account identify the person in the video as Navin Kumar—not Rohit Sardana.