Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Politics & government fact checks

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

12,745 published reviews in this topic

Belarusian Investigative CenterPolitics & government

Премьер Люксембурга велел Зеленскому замолчать, использовав неприличный жест

Publisher’s rating: Если посмотреть то же видео, только несколькими секундами ранее, видно, что Зеленский беседует с президентом Сербии Александром Вучичем и премьер-министром Люксембурга. На видео с другого ракурса видно, что политики настроены дружелюбно по отношению друг к другу.

Boatos.orgPolitics & government

A CODEVASF  por seu e Governo PT Praticam atos de destruição de plantações no Juazeiro da Bahia

Publisher’s rating: Falso

The claim says that CODEVASF and the PT government destroyed crops in Juazeiro, Bahia. The review examined a video shared with that allegation, in which a man identifies himself as being at the Abril Vermelho settlement and accuses CODEVASF and the government of destroying fruit crops. It distinguishes the reality of the footage from the claim that the event was current or connected to the Lula government: “apesar de o vídeo ser real, ele não retrata uma situação de 2023.” The review reports that it searched for information about an action at Abril Vermelho in 2023 and found none. It then places the footage in a different period and setting: “Na realidade, o vídeo em questão é de 2019.” According to the review, in November 2019 the Federal Police carried out a repossession action on an area belonging to CODEVASF, and settlement members reported destruction of planted areas during that operation. That chronology changes the attribution in the circulating claim. The review concludes that the video was recorded during the Bolsonaro government, not as evidence of the PT government ordering the destruction. Its conclusion is specifically about the claim that Lula’s government was responsible for the destruction shown; the article does not deny that the footage depicts damaged crops or that settlement members made complaints.

FACTLYPolitics & government

Karnataka Congress government has set multiple requirements to qualify for the free electricity scheme

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerned a viral post alleging that Karnataka’s Congress government required people to own no land or two-wheeler or four-wheeler vehicles, and to keep their children out of private schools, to qualify for free electricity. FACTLY’s review addressed those specific alleged conditions in relation to the state’s Gruha Jyothi scheme. The review says the scheme’s explanatory document stated that “all residential consumers within the state are eligible,” including tenants in rented homes, and that the government had not imposed restrictions on owning land or vehicles. This directly contradicts the post’s central assertion that those circumstances disqualified households. The review also says the government announced the scheme would roll out from 1 July 2023, with the benefit appearing in consumers’ bills from August. The eligibility was not an unconditional promise of a zero bill for every household: the review reports that one meter per household could qualify, and that the benefit depended on average consumption in financial year 2022–23 plus a 10% increase, subject to a 200-unit limit. Those consumption rules differ from the viral post’s alleged restrictions based on land, vehicles, or private-school attendance.

Fact CrescendoPolitics & government

Claim: DMK minister ponmudi not ordered to shoot the vanniyar caste fanatics

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerned a news card circulating on social media that attributed to Tamil Nadu minister K. Ponmudi a call to shoot Vanniyar caste members who were allegedly preventing Dalit people from worshipping at a temple. The review says the card was shared on Facebook on June 11, 2023, amid reports that a temple had recently been sealed after Dalit worshippers were denied entry. It investigated whether Ponmudi had actually made the quoted remarks and whether the card was genuine. [S1] The review checked Thanthi TV’s Facebook page for the purported June 10 card and reported finding no card featuring Ponmudi. It then used Google reverse-image search and found a similar Thanthi TV card dated May 19, 2023. That genuine card concerned an extension of the application period for arts and science colleges, not an appeal to shoot anyone. The review reported that the circulating image had been edited to add the false statement. [S1] As a further check, the publisher sent the image to the head of Thanthi TV’s digital division, who confirmed it was fake. The review also found reporting that a DMK MLA had complained seeking action against people spreading the rumor. On the evidence described, the purported quotation was not supported by a genuine broadcast card; the image was a manipulated version of a card about college applications. [S1]

FACTLYPolitics & government

Image of PM Modi standing on the staircase of an under-construction building and waving hands

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns an image presented as showing Prime Minister Narendra Modi standing on a staircase at an under-construction building and waving. FACTLY reports that the image was edited, rather than an authentic photograph of Modi in that setting. Its account identifies the real scene as Modi bowing and waving to the public at a meeting in Tumkur, Karnataka, in May 2023. To investigate, FACTLY says it reverse-image-searched the viral picture and found a matching image from Modi’s Karnataka election campaign in Tumkur. It notes that the saffron-coloured jacket in the viral image also appears in that event’s imagery. The review then searched for video of Modi’s Tumkur appearances and found footage showing him entering a dais and waving to the public. FACTLY says comparison of the footage with the viral image showed that the event image had been altered to make Modi appear to be on a staircase at an under-construction building. Thus, the misleading element is the depicted setting: the review traces the image to a public event, not the building scene asserted in the claim.