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

FACTLYCulture & entertainment

Nawab Ali Bahadur of Band performed the last rites of Rani Lakshmi Bai

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

The claim is that Nawab Ali Bahadur of Banda performed Rani Lakshmi Bai’s last rites after her death, supposedly because no Hindu would do so out of fear of the British. The review distinguishes that allegation from accounts that the Nawab supported Lakshmi Bai during the 1857 revolt. It reports that she sought his help and that he joined the fighting with an army of ten thousand soldiers; that support, the review says, does not establish that he later performed her last rites. S1 describes the claim as having no reports or substantial evidence in its support. To assess what happened after Lakshmi Bai was fatally injured, the review sets out several reported accounts of her death and cremation. One says she was shot by the British near Phool Bagh in Gwalior; another says she asked a hermit to burn her body so the British could not capture it. It also recounts an essay’s version in which her attendant Ramchandra Rao removed her body and lit the funeral pyre, and notes that Jaishree Misra’s book supports that account by referring to General Hugh Rose’s claim to have seen the cremation. The review says these versions differ, but none identifies Nawab Ali Bahadur as the person who performed the rites. The conclusion is therefore limited to the evidence presented: the Nawab’s reported military assistance is not evidence that he conducted Lakshmi Bai’s last rites, and the review finds no supporting reports for that specific allegation. It acknowledges conflicting accounts of her death rather than treating one version as definitively established.

Fact CrescendoCulture & entertainment

Claim: misleading shared about the launching year of morning star newspaper

Publisher’s rating: Missing Context

Fact Crescendo examined social-media posts presenting a photograph of the Tamil newspaper Morning Star, or Udaya Tharakai, as evidence that it was the world’s first Tamil daily and began on 14 January 1817. The review says it found versions of the post that gave no date as well as versions that added 14 January 1817. That distinction matters: the date was not consistently part of the image-based claim. The investigation was prompted by a reader asking whether the shared information was true. (The review describes the circulated claim as: “உலகில் முதல் தமிழ் நாளிதழ் உதய தாரகை 14.01.1817 அன்று தொடங்கப்பட்டது,” and says some versions circulated “தேதி எதுவும் இல்லாததைக்” while others “14.01.1817 என்று தேதியை குறிப்பிட்டு பகிர்வதையும் காண முடிகிறது.”) To seek further evidence, the review reports that its Sri Lanka team contacted the North Sri Lanka Journalists Association. The association provided a media statement identifying Udaya Tharakai–Morning Star as a publication from 1841. The review therefore concluded that the photograph of the 1841 newspaper was being shared as if it showed a newspaper published in 1817. The excerpt does not provide the association’s statement itself or independent details about the newspaper’s publishing history, so the evidence described here is the fact-check’s account of that statement and its comparison with the circulated posts. (“நமது இலங்கை பிரிவினரின் உதவியுடன், கூடுதல் ஆதாரத்திற்காக, இலங்கையில் உள்ள North Sri Lanka Journalists Association என்ற பத்திரிகையாளர் சங்கத்தை தொடர்புகொண்டு, விளக்கம் கேட்டோம். அவர்கள் இதுபற்றிய ஊடக செய்திக்குறிப்பு ஒன்றை வழங்கினர்.”; “அதில், உதய தாரகை – Morning Star கடந்த 1841ம் ஆண்டில் வெளியான ஒன்று எனக் குறிப்பிடப்பட்டிருந்தது.”) The review’s central finding is that the image does not substantiate the asserted 1817 launch year: the association’s statement places the depicted newspaper in 1841, and the review says the image was presented as though it documented a 1817 publication. Its account also preserves an important qualification: some circulating versions omitted a date, while others supplied the specific 1817 date. (“எனவே, 1841ல் வெளியான உதய தாரகை நாளிதழ் பற்றிய புகைப்படத்தை எடுத்து, 1817ல் வெளியானதைப் போல குறிப்பிட்டு தகவல் பரப்பியுள்ளனர் என்று சந்தேகமின்றி உறுதி செய்யப்படுகிறது.”; “ஒரு சிலர் தேதி குறிப்பிடாமல் பகிர, சிலர் அதில் 14.01.1817 என்று தேதியை குறிப்பிட்டு பகிர்வதையும் காண முடிகிறது.”)

FACTLYCulture & entertainment

‘ABP News’ bulletin reporting the Delhi High Court’s judgement on Akshay Kumar’s ‘Samrat Prithviraj’ film

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns a social-media screenshot presented as an ABP News bulletin saying the Delhi High Court recognised Prithviraj Chauhan as a Gurjar king and directed the makers of Samrat Prithviraj not to depict him as a Rajput king. The review concludes that the screenshot was altered and that ABP News had not broadcast such a report. It says the court did not issue an order recognising Chauhan as a Gurjar king. The court proceeding described in the review had a narrower outcome. On 1 June 2022, the Delhi High Court disposed of a petition alleging that the film depicted Chauhan as a Rajput king, after Yash Raj Films told the court that the film was neutral and made no caste references. The court said the respondents remained bound by that statement. This account does not support the screenshot’s asserted ruling about Chauhan’s identity or a direction to change the film. The review also describes checks specific to the purported bulletin: it searched ABP News’s YouTube channel and official Twitter handle for such a report and compared the screenshot’s template with ABP’s actual template. It notes a difference in the Hindi rendering of “High Court.” ABP also clarified in a tweet that the widely shared screenshot was fake and that it had broadcast no such news.

FACTLYCulture & entertainment

Photo of Miss India 2022 which was won for the first time by a Banjara girl

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

The post paired a photo with a claim about a “Miss India 2022” winner and said the title had been won for the first time by a Banjara girl. The review’s investigation found that the photo showed a winner from a different competition: the Mr and Miss India 2022 Finals organised by Wings Models Hub. It identifies the winner as Nikitha, while noting that the information it checked did not establish whether she belonged to the Banjara community. To trace the image, the review says a reverse image search found the same visual in a YouTube video. It reports that the video identified the footage as part of the Wings Models Hub finals. The review also checked the agency’s website and Instagram: it describes Wings Models Hub as a modelling agency that organises competitions based on registrations, and says its Instagram identified Nikitha as the winner without describing her as the first Banjara girl to win. The key distinction is that the Wings Models Hub contest is not the more prominent Miss India competition organised by Femina. The review therefore found that the photo was from the Wings Models Hub event, not evidence for the claim as framed about the other Miss India competition. It did not verify Nikitha’s community identity or establish the broader “first Banjara girl” assertion.

FACTLYCulture & entertainment

Video of Kareena Kapoor appealing people to not watch Laal Singh Chaddha movie

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

The claim concerns a video of Kareena Kapoor saying “do not go” and asks whether she was appealing to people not to watch Laal Singh Chaddha. FACTLY reports that the clip was circulated in connection with the upcoming film, but says the remarks were actually made in 2020 in a discussion about criticism of nepotism. The review states that the comments were about actors facing such criticism, not about the film. To trace the clip, FACTLY says it searched YouTube using relevant keywords and found what it identified as the original video. According to the review, the viral excerpt came from that video, which dates to 13 August 2020. The review also says news agencies reported Kapoor’s comments at the time and that those reports connected them to nepotism. This places the remarks before the film-related framing described in the post. The review further notes that it found no reports of Kapoor promoting Laal Singh Chaddha at that point. Taken together, the described source video and the reported subject of her comments do not support presenting the clip as an appeal against watching that film: the review identifies it as an older excerpt about the nepotism debate that was later linked to the movie.