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.

12,746 published reviews in this topic

YouturnPolitics & government

13/04/2023 வியாழன்:~ பிஸ்லேரி பாட்டில் கேட்டு தாகம் தீர்க்கும் பல முதல்வர்களைப் பார்த்திருப்பீர்கள், ஆனால் அப்படிப்பட்ட முதல்வரைப் பார்த்ததில்லை. தாகம் தீர்க்க யோகி ஆதித்யநாத், இப்படி ஒரு முதலமைச்சரை கைப்பம்பில் பார்த்ததுண்டா, பார்க்கவில்லை என்றால் முடிந்தவரை பகிருங்கள். அதனால்தான் இன்று நாட்டின் எல்லா மாநிலங்களிலும் யோகி போன்ற முதல்வர் தேவை என்ற கோரிக்கை எழுந்துள்ளது!!

Publisher’s rating: Misleading

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaPolitics & government

ජනපති රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ සමඟ මේ මොහොතේ දේශපාලන සන්ධානයකට අවතීර්ණ වන බව සජිත් පවසන අවස්ථාවක් ?

Publisher’s rating: Misleading

The review investigates a social-media video presented as showing opposition leader Sajith Premadasa saying he would work with President Ranil Wickremesinghe and the United National Party in a new political alliance. It says the video and still images were circulated without a clear explanation of when or in what circumstances Premadasa had made the remarks, encouraging viewers to interpret them as a recent announcement. The review reports that checking Premadasa’s official social-media accounts and mainstream media found no recent statement of that kind. To establish the clip’s origin, the fact-check describes using InVID-WeVerify to examine the video. It identifies the footage as part of remarks Premadasa made during a media briefing in February 2020, near the formation of the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), rather than a current declaration about joining Wickremesinghe’s government. The review says the original broadcast aired on Ada Derana on February 26, 2020, and that the complete briefing was also posted on Premadasa’s official YouTube channel. In the original setting, according to the review, Premadasa invited Wickremesinghe, then leader of the UNP, to the SJB’s scheduled March 2, 2020, launch at Nelum Pokuna. The remarks also invited groups meeting specified patriotic and national-unity principles to join the SJB. That invitation and broader appeal are not evidence that Premadasa had decided to enter a current political alliance with Wickremesinghe. The review adds that Wickremesinghe did not attend the launch and that the SJB and UNP ultimately contested the August 2020 parliamentary election as separate parties. The review further reports that the opposition leader’s office described the circulating footage as an old, misleadingly presented clip, and that Premadasa said the SJB had no readiness to join the then government. Thus, the key distinction is between an earlier invitation to a party launch and a claim of a present-day alliance: the clip’s date and original context do not support the latter.

FACTLYPolitics & government

Video showing former PM Dr. Manmohan Singh being humiliated. He was asked to vacate his seat for Sonia Gandhi

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns footage of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh moving from a seat beside Sonia Gandhi. It was shared as evidence that he was humiliated and ordered to give up his seat for her. FACTLY identifies the footage as showing an incident at a UPA meeting in December 2011, not an account of a public reprimand. The review says both figures had SPG protection and that security personnel advised them about a seating mix-up. [S1: “The viral visuals show an incident that took place during a UPA meeting in December 2011.”] [S1: “This was a UPA meeting and both Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi were provided with SPG protection, they acted upon the SPG guards advice.”] To check the footage, FACTLY reports that a YouTube keyword search led to a news report showing the same visuals. That report’s account was that Singh had mistakenly taken a seat assigned to Sonia Gandhi; guards first alerted Gandhi, who stood, and later informed Singh, who moved to his assigned seat. The review also says a separate report carried the same visuals and placed them at a meeting at the Prime Minister’s residence to build agreement among UPA allies ahead of a high-level Lokpal Bill meeting. [S1: “A keyword search on YouTube yielded us news report which reported the same visuals.”] [S1: “Manmohan Singh had mistakenly sat in a seat assigned to UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi. Realizing this, SPG guard assigned to Manmohan Singh discussed the issue with the guard assigned to Sonia Gandhi, and they first brought the issue to Mrs. Gandhi’s notice, who then stood up. Later the guards informed Manmohan Singh about the issue, who then vacated the seat and sat in his actual seat.”] Thus, the movement shown in the video is consistent with the two leaders correcting a seating mix-up after advice from their guards, rather than Singh being humiliated or compelled to yield his seat as the claim alleges. FACTLY notes that its explanation of the guards’ role is based on the reports and the fact that both leaders had SPG protection; it does not present a direct statement from either leader. [S1: “As both former PM Manmohan Singh and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi were under SPG security, most likely they swapped their seats based on the inputs by SPG guards, as there are instances wherein SPG is very particular about seating arrangements of the dignitaries as per their SoP.”]

FACTLYPolitics & government

India was elected as the president of the UN for four years

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

The claim concerned India’s election to a UN post for a four-year term, with the social-media post and its accompanying video describing that post as president of the UN or president of the UN Statistical Commission. The review’s central distinction is that India was elected as a member of the UN Statistical Commission, not as its head: it reports, “India was recently elected as a member of the UN Statistical Commission for a term of four years.” To check the claim, FACTLY says it searched the internet using relevant keywords and found news reports from the first week of April 2023 about India’s election to the Commission. The review quotes the Indian Express as saying, “India has been elected to the UN Statistical Commission for a four-year term.” It also reports that India received 46 of 53 votes in the membership election, ahead of South Korea, China and the UAE. Jaishankar’s quoted post specified that the term would begin on 1 January 2024. The evidence therefore supports the four-year term but not the claim that India was elected president. The review explains that the Commission is headed by a Chairperson, not a President, and identifies Gabriella Vukovich of Hungary as its current Chairperson. These distinctions matter: election as a member of a body does not establish election as its head.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturPolitics & government

Die UN und das WEF befehlen den Regierungen, die Wasserversorgung in den Häusern der Menschen zu rationieren.

Publisher’s rating: Die Wasserversorgung wird nicht rationiert. Der UN-Wassergipfel in New York endete ohne Beschlüsse.

The claim was that the UN and the World Economic Forum had instructed governments to ration household water following a conference in New York. The review identifies that conference as the UN Water Conference, held from March 22 to 24, 2023, and says its stated purpose was to consider how to achieve universal access to water and sanitation. It reports that about 10,000 people attended, citing UN figures. [S1: “Zutreffend ist, dass vom 22. bis 24. März 2023 in New York die «UN Wasserkonferenz» stattfand, an der nach UN-Angaben etwa 10 000 Menschen teilnahmen.”] The decisive point is that the conference did not produce government decisions ordering rationing. The review says the meeting ended without decisions and that no joint declaration by governments was issued. It also says such decisions were not planned. [S1: “Das Treffen in New York endete ohne Beschlüsse. Solche Beschlüsse waren auch nicht geplant. Es gab am Ende der Konferenz nicht einmal eine gemeinsame Erklärung der Regierungen.”] As evidence about the conference’s actual outcomes, the review cites a UN report that recorded about 700 voluntary pledges from participants. It says these included water infrastructure expansion, financing water and wastewater projects in the Pacific region and Africa, and reducing water use, especially in food production—not rationing. The review notes that implementation of the voluntary pledges was uncertain and reports that the Earth Negotiations Bulletin discussed whether the lack of binding commitments was wise. Those qualifications do not support the claim that governments were ordered to ration water. [S1: “Tatsächlich wurden laut einem Bericht der UN über die Ergebnisse der New Yorker Wasserkonferenz etwa 700 freiwillige Absichtserklärungen der Teilnehmer zur Kenntnis genommen. Die Rationierung von Wasser war nicht darunter.”]