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

dpaPolitics & government

Les médias n'ont pas parlé d'une manifestation pendant une conférence de presse de Mark Rutte.

Publisher’s rating: Cette affirmation est fausse. Contrairement à ce que cette publication Facebook sous-entend, cette sortie mouvementée a été relayée par différents médias. Notamment par les médias en ligne du pays, et ce dès le jour même.

The claim concerned a specific Facebook post accompanying video of vehicles leaving a building amid jeers. The review identifies the scene as the departure of Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and Health Minister Hugo de Jonge after a press conference on 14 September 2021. The post implied that the media had not covered the incident; the review therefore checked whether reporting about that same protest appeared in news coverage. [S1: “Il s'agit en fait de la sortie de Mark Rutte, Premier ministre néerlandais, et de celle de Hugo de Jonge, ministre néerlandais de la Santé publique, à la fin d'une conférence de presse qui s'est tenue le 14 septembre 2021.”] The review points to reports published online in the Netherlands on the evening of the event. NU.nl published an article at 20:38, titled “Ministère temporairement fermé à cause d'une manifestation,” which described hundreds of protesters, fireworks, slogans and banners, and police trying to move demonstrators away from the conference venue. Omroep West also reported that the ministry had been closed after the press conference, and its site showed photographs of police and smoke bombs. These accounts address the protest associated with the specific press conference, rather than a different demonstration. [S1: “Le soir même (à savoir donc le 14 septembre) à 20h38, le site en ligne néerlandais NU.nl a effectivement publié un article avec pour titre « Ministère temporairement fermé à cause d'une manifestation ».”] [S1: “Des centaines de manifestants étaient impliqués... De lourds feux d'artifice ont été déclenchés... Ils ont également scandé des slogans et brandi des banderoles.”] The review also cites coverage outside the Netherlands: Belgian newspaper Het Nieuwsblad published an online article at 23:03 on 14 September. Its account described protest noise during the press conference, including horns, sirens and fireworks, and said the building was closed for security reasons, with journalists and officials allowed to leave only at 21:30. Taken together, the named reports and their event-specific details contradict the post’s implication that the incident went unreported. [S1: “Un article est effectivement publié sur le site le 14 septembre à 23h03”] [S1: “Le bâtiment a été fermé pour des raisons de sécurité, les journalistes et fonctionnaires présents n'ont été autorisés à sortir qu'à 21h30.”]

Pagella PoliticaPolitics & government

«Il governo italiano chiede quattro voti di fiducia in 48 ore su temi sensibili come la giustizia penale e civile e come il green pass»

Publisher’s rating: Vero

The claim concerns Giorgia Meloni’s criticism of the Draghi government, made on 21 September at Rome’s Municipality III, that it had sought four confidence votes in 48 hours on civil and criminal justice and the Green Pass. Pagella Politica checked the number by identifying the parliamentary votes already held and those announced for the following two days. Its account says the Chamber of Deputies approved the Green Pass decree with a confidence vote on 21 September, while the Senate approved a confidence-backed amendment to the civil-procedure reform that same day. The government had announced two further confidence votes for 22 and 23 September: one on the criminal-procedure reform and one on the Green Pass decree. Taken together, these events support the stated count and subject matter. (S1: “Martedì 21 settembre la Camera ha approvato con la fiducia la conversione in legge del cosiddetto ‘decreto Green pass bis’”; “Nello stesso giorno il Senato ha invece approvato, sempre con la fiducia, il cosiddetto ‘maxi-emendamento’ al disegno di legge delega sulla riforma del processo civile”; “Per oggi e domani – mercoledì 22 settembre e giovedì 23 settembre – il governo ha poi già annunciato la volontà di porre altri due voti di fiducia in Senato”) The review’s count combines completed votes with votes that had been announced, not four votes that had all already taken place. It also explains a counting qualification: the Senate confidence question on the criminal-procedure bill technically involved two votes on separate articles. Some press accounts counted those separately, making five votes in 48 hours; Pagella Politica counted them as one because it considered them part of a single legislative measure. (S1: “per il 22 e 23 settembre sono poi in programma altri due voti di fiducia al Senato”; “Alcune fonti stampa conteggiano per questa votazione due voti di fiducia, facendo salire il numero dei voti di fiducia in cinque in 48 ore. Nella nostra analisi abbiamo deciso di considerarlo come un voto singolo, visto l’oggetto unitario del voto.”) The article also places the episode in a broader comparison, reporting that by its count the Draghi government had used confidence votes on bills 18 times since taking office, about once every 12 days. It says only the Monti government had used them more frequently among the governments it compared from the previous three legislatures. That comparison provides context for the review, while the four-vote claim itself rests on the dated parliamentary votes and announced votes described above. (S1: “Stiamo parlando di un totale di 18 voti di fiducia, uno ogni 12 giorni circa.”; “nelle ultime tre legislature solo il governo di Mario Monti ha fatto più ricorso alla fiducia”)

FACTLYPolitics & government

Former CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma in his resignation letter had called Narendra Modi the most corrupt Prime Minister of Independent India

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns the contents of Alok Kumar Verma’s resignation letter after he was removed as CBI chief in January 2019. FACTLY reports that Verma submitted the letter on 11 January, the day after the selection panel removed him and transferred him to the Fire Services. It says the letter questioned the panel’s decision and its reliance on the Central Vigilance Committee report, but did not accuse Narendra Modi of being the most corrupt Prime Minister of independent India. The review’s conclusion is that the specific statement attributed to Verma was not in the letter. [S1] As evidence of what the letter did say, the review quotes Verma objecting that the selection committee had not let him explain details in the CVC report before deciding his case. It also quotes his description of the process as one in which “Natural justice was scuttled.” These are criticisms of the process and his removal; they do not support the alleged statement about Modi. [S1] The review describes its checks as a search for reporting about Verma’s resignation and notes that news websites had obtained and published copies of the letter. Its account of the letter’s wording, together with the quoted passage, supports its distinction between Verma’s objections to the decision and the claim attributed to him. [S1]