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.

12,752 published reviews in this topic

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaPolitics & government

FACT CHECK: LPL ගහන්නේ ආණ්ඩුවේ සල්ලි වලින් බවට විපක්ෂනායක වරයාගේ ප්‍රකාශයක්?

Publisher’s rating: False

The review investigated social-media posts attributing remarks about gas shortages and the Lanka Premier League (LPL) to opposition leader Sajith Premadasa. One post presented the words “LPL ගහන්නේ ආණ්ඩුවේ සල්ලි වලින්” (“the LPL is played with government money”) as part of a purported exchange, and the posts used a photograph to suggest the remarks had been made at a protest rally. The review says the photograph was from the Samagi Jana Balawegaya protest held near Galle Face on November 16, 2021. To check the attribution, the publisher says it watched Premadasa’s full speech at that rally. It reports that he made no mention of the LPL and did not use the alleged gas-related wording, though he did speak about queues for gas, fuel, milk powder and sugar. The review also says it checked mainstream-media coverage of the rally and contacted Premadasa’s media office. His media secretary reportedly said he had made no LPL statement at the rally or previously in the manner circulating online. The review separately contacted Sri Lanka Cricket about the claim that the tournament used government money. It reports that the board administered the competition and had agreed to grant Dubai-based IPG official rights for five years, with payments made to the board under the agreement; Sri Lanka Cricket said the government did not fund the LPL. The review also points to IPG’s website as describing rights relating to franchises, media, ground sponsorship and production for 2020–2024. Its evidence therefore challenges both the alleged attribution to Premadasa and the accompanying assertion about government funding.

dpaPolitics & government

Deze foto's tonen protest tegen The Great Reset en de coronamaatregelen.

Publisher’s rating: De beelden zijn misleidend zonder de juiste context. De foto's worden gepresenteerd alsof ze protesten tegen 'The Great Reset' tonen, maar slechts twee van de vijf heeft überhaupt iets met de coronapandemie te maken.

The review examines five photos of protests in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, England and France, posted by the Facebook page “Nederland in Verzet” with the caption “NO GREAT RESET!!”. That caption suggested the gatherings were all protests against The Great Reset; the review says the photos were presented as if they showed protests against it, or at least against COVID measures. It identifies the events shown in the individual images to assess that implication. The Italian photo is identified as a protest against COVID measures on 9 October 2021, and the Dutch photo as a protest against those measures in The Hague on 7 October 2021. The other three images show different events: supporters of Spanish unity in Barcelona on 20 October 2019; a London demonstration calling for a referendum on the Brexit deal on 20 October 2018; and a march in Paris on 11 January 2015, following terrorist attacks there. The review therefore finds that only two of the five photos concern COVID measures, while three predate the pandemic and do not show protests about those measures or The Great Reset. The review also explains why the caption could create a misleading impression: the page mainly shared critical posts about COVID measures and protests against them in the Netherlands, and most comments on the post likewise treated the images as protests against The Great Reset or COVID measures. But the review’s identification of the separate events shows that the caption does not accurately describe the full set of photos.

FACTLYPolitics & government

Manmohan Singh tweeted that Congress did not allow him to take his own decisions

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerned an image circulating on social media that purported to show former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh tweeting that Congress had not allowed him to take his own decisions. The review examined the account shown in that image, identified as “@manmohan_5,” rather than treating the image itself as proof that Singh had posted the words. [S1]

המשרוקית של גלובסPolitics & government

החוק אומר שרק מי שקיבל תמורה יכול להיחשב כח"כ שפרש

Publisher’s rating: לא נכון ברובו

The review examined Shikli’s statement after he voted against the budget: that without receiving consideration, he could not be declared to have left his faction. It focused on what the law says about declaring an MK a defector, rather than predicting whether Shikli would be declared one. The review notes that section 6A of Basic Law: The Knesset addresses the issue and that its wording includes a case in which a dissenting vote on confidence or no confidence does not count as departure if the MK received no consideration for the vote. But the provision begins with “including,” which the review says indicates that this is not the only possible basis for finding that an MK left a faction. To assess how that wording had been interpreted, the review examined a 2017 Knesset Committee proceeding concerning Orly Levy-Abekasis. The committee considered 177 votes against her faction’s position, most of them on the budget; the review says the parties did not dispute that she had received no consideration. Knesset legal adviser Eyal Yinon argued that the law did not limit the grounds for finding departure to cases involving a promised benefit. The committee ultimately declared Levy-Abekasis a defector. The review presents this case as evidence that consideration is not required in every circumstance. The review also distinguishes the statutory wording from its broader interpretation: it says Shikli was right that the text expressly mentions consideration in the specified voting scenario, but that the legal advice and the Levy-Abekasis case show why his categorical claim goes too far. It does not conclude that Shikli himself met the criteria; it says any decision on his case would be for the Knesset members involved.

dpaPolitics & government

Markus Söder hat in einem Video den "K-Fall" ausgerufen und plant demzufolge die Einführung des Kriegsrechts.

Publisher’s rating: Söder bezieht sich mit seiner Formulierung auf den Katastrophenfall, wie später im Text des Postings auch vermerkt. Nichts in dem Video deutet auf Planungen für die Ausrufung eines in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland gar nicht existierenden Kriegsrechts hin. Dem am nächsten käme der sogenannte Verteidigungsfall, der aber auf Bundesebene ausgerufen würde.

The claim concerned a Facebook video in which Bavarian Minister-President Markus Söder referred to a “K-Fall.” The post interpreted this as a plan to impose martial law and gain control of the military. The dpa review identifies the clip as an excerpt from Söder’s press conference on 9 November 2021 and describes it as a discussion of Bavaria’s worsening COVID-19 situation—not a military measure. The review says the post itself also connected the phrase to the disaster declaration, yet still made the martial-law allegation. (S1) The context in the clip was the transfer of patients from hospitals under heavy pressure to less burdened hospitals. Söder said that declaring the disaster case would let authorities make hierarchical decisions, including ordering such transfers. The stated need was for coordinated management of hospital capacity; the excerpt provides no indication that he was proposing military rule. (S1) The review distinguishes the state disaster declaration from a constitutional “defence situation.” It says martial law does not exist in Germany, and that the closest equivalent, the defence situation, would be declared at federal level. It further explains that Bavaria’s disaster-management powers concern the non-military sphere. The video’s phrase and its hospital-management context therefore do not support the post’s claim that Söder planned to introduce martial law. (S1)

فکت‌نامهPolitics & government

آیا طرح «جمعیت و تعالی خانواده» موانع فرزندآوری را برداشته است؟

Publisher’s rating: مجموع بررسی‌های «فکت‌‌نامه» نشان می‌دهد که اگرچه برخی مواد «قانون جوانی جمعیت و حمایت از خانواده» می‌تواند برای برخی از جوانان و برخی خانواده‌ها جذاب باشد، ولی به نظر نمی‌رسد این قانون توانسته باشد موانع ازدواج و فرزندآوری را مرتفع سازد.

FACTLYPolitics & government

PM Modi’s pictures with Nita Ambani and Tulsi Gowda show the preferential treatment the rich get from Modi

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

The post compared images of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Nita Ambani and Tulsi Gowda under the heading “Difference is Clear,” claiming that the contrast showed that rich and famous people receive equal respect from Modi. FACTLY’s investigation found that the images came from different events and did not establish the suggested contrast in his treatment of the two women. The review says the Ambani image showed Modi being welcomed by Nita and Mukesh Ambani, while the Gowda image was from a Padma Award ceremony. (S1: “A post is being widely shared on social media claiming that one needs to be rich and famous to get equal respect from PM Modi. Photos of Modi greeting Nita Ambani and Tulsi Gowda are being compared with the heading ‘Difference is Clear’ alluding to the difference between the two.”) To check the images, the investigation reports using reverse image searches. It traced the Ambani photograph to an Outlook India photo gallery and to a video livestreamed from Modi’s official YouTube channel. The image was taken on 25 October 2014, when Modi arrived in Mumbai for the inauguration of HN Reliance Foundation Hospital and was welcomed by Nita and Mukesh Ambani. (S1: “When reverse image search is done on the photo of PM Modi with Nita Ambani, the same photo was found in the photo gallery of Outlook India. The photo was taken when Narendra Modi was being welcomed by Nita Ambani and Mukesh Ambani on his arrival for the inauguration of HN Reliance Foundation Hospital in Mumbai. This photo is from 25 October 2014, and it can also be seen in a video live-streamed from Modi’s official YouTube channel.”) The other image was from the Padma Awards ceremony held on 8 November 2021. FACTLY says its reverse-image search found the photograph in an Instagram post by Modi, and that the ceremony moment was also visible in a video on the President of India’s official YouTube channel. The review further reports that Modi personally greeted Gowda at the same ceremony and that a photograph of this greeting resembles the 2014 image with Ambani. This context undermines the post’s use of the selected images as evidence of differential respect. (S1: “However, Prime Minister Narendra Modi did greet Tulsi Gowda personally in the same award ceremony on 08 November 2021. A photograph of Modi greeting Tulsi Gowda personally can be seen here, and this photograph is like the one where PM Modi was greeting Nita Ambani in 2014.”)