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.

12,754 published reviews in this topic

台灣事實查核中心Politics & government

網傳影片「昨天總統府很熱鬧，新聞都沒報」，經查：傳言指稱的11月24日，總統府前沒有陳抗活動。網傳影片紀錄的事件為2016年12月26日，下一代幸福聯盟自立法院步行至總統府前抗議民法部分條文通過初審。此次活動有多家媒體報導，並非「新聞都沒報」。此傳言挪用三年前的舊事件影片，卻稱為「近期發生且媒體未報導」的事件，為「錯誤」訊息。

Publisher’s rating: 錯誤

The review examined a viral video shared from November 25, 2019, with the claim that the Presidential Office had been busy the previous day while the news media stayed silent. It reported that police in Taipei’s Zhongzheng First Precinct said there had been no large-scale police deployment or protest around the Presidential Office on November 24, 2019. That directly contradicts the video’s presentation as footage of a protest there the day before. To identify what the video actually showed, the review compared it with footage posted by the Next Generation Happiness Alliance and a CTS News report. It found the same white clothing and placards, matching chants and audio, and identical slogans across the clips. The slogans included calls to stop review and submit the matter to a referendum, and to remove “sexual liberation” teaching materials from schools. The review connected those signs to the Legislative Yuan’s December 26, 2016 preliminary passage of amendments to parts of the Civil Code, and identified the footage as a protest by the alliance that marched from the legislature to the Presidential Office. The “news did not report it” part of the claim is also contradicted by the review’s account: it said the event was covered on December 26, 2016, by the Central News Agency, UDN Video, CTS, FTV and Storm Media. The video was therefore old footage presented as a recent event, and the reported media coverage does not support the claim that the protest went unreported.

Fact CrescendoPolitics & government

Claim: Udhayanidhi Stalin ran away from Murasoli Land Commission

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The review investigated a social-media post alleging that Udhayanidhi Stalin failed to appear before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes in connection with the dispute over the land occupied by the Murasoli office. The post described his absence as a fearful escape. The review traced the controversy to a complaint alleging that the Murasoli property stood on land allotted to Dalits, and examined who had actually been summoned and who appeared.

Fact CrescendoPolitics & government

Claim: Ramadoss asked OPS to show his birth certificate

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The review investigated a Facebook post attributing to PMK founder Ramadoss a demand that O. Panneerselvam (OPS) publish his birth certificate to prove he was a man. It places the post in the wake of controversy over comments by Thuglak editor Gurumurthy about OPS’s role in the events following Jayalalithaa’s death. The review says Gurumurthy had described asking OPS a question about his masculinity, which made the political controversy a likely setting for the fabricated attribution: “குருமூர்த்தி கூறவே, தமிழக அரசியலில் பெரும் சர்ச்சை ஏற்பட்டுள்ளது.” To check the attribution, the investigators searched for whether Ramadoss had criticized OPS in this matter. They report that his last tweet before a period of illness and hospital treatment was on November 22, and that he had since returned home and resumed political commentary on Twitter. They found no comment by Ramadoss about the OPS–Gurumurthy affair and no news report of such a statement: “ஓபிஎஸ், குருமூர்த்தி விவகாரத்தில் அவர் எதுவும் கருத்து கூறவில்லை. அந்த செய்தி வெளியாகவில்லை.” The review also notes that Ramadoss’s PMK was then part of the BJP–AIADMK alliance and argues that a public attack on OPS, then deputy chief minister, would have attracted significant attention. Its conclusion rests on the investigators’ reported search and the absence of any reported statement, rather than on a direct record of Ramadoss denying that he made the remark. The review concludes that the Facebook post falsely attributed the demand to him.

NewtralPolitics & government

El señor Casado fue miembro del gobierno de Esperanza Aguirre

Publisher’s rating: Falso

The claim arose from a remark by PSOE official José Luis Ábalos about Pablo Casado. After a journalist asked Ábalos about Casado’s reaction to the Andalusian ERE sentence, Ábalos referred to Casado as someone who had been a member of Esperanza Aguirre’s government. The article says the exchange took place on 19 November, after the sentence became known. To check whether Casado had been part of the Madrid regional government, Newtral says it consulted the Madrid regional official bulletin and newspaper archives. It describes the relevant government bodies as the president, the governing council and the councillors, then checks the membership of Aguirre’s governments. Its account says Casado was not among the members of the governments formed after Aguirre took office in 2003, returned to the presidency in 2007, or took office again in 2011. The article distinguishes Casado’s political and advisory work from membership in the executive. It reports that he served in the Madrid Assembly from 2007 to 2009, including on legislative committees, and that before becoming an assembly member he advised Alfredo Prada, then the regional justice and interior councillor. Newtral says the advisory post was temporary public-service staff, but was not considered executive membership or a senior office under the cited incompatibility rules. Thus, the reported positions do not establish that Casado was a member of Aguirre’s government.

Pagella PoliticaPolitics & government

«Indice di produttività, Giorgia Meloni: 52 proposte di legge, 13 mozioni, 188 emendamenti; Luigi Di Maio: 15 proposte di legge, 0 mozioni, 0 emendamenti».

Publisher’s rating: Pinocchio andante

The review examined a comparison shared by Giorgia Meloni on Twitter on November 19, in which her legislative activity was set against Luigi Di Maio’s. It checked the figures against records from the Chamber of Deputies and, for amendments, calculations available through OpenPolis’s OpenParlamento portal. The review found that some figures in the comparison were inaccurate: Meloni had presented 51 bills as first signatory, rather than 52; she had presented 15 motions, not 13; and her 188 amendments figure was correct. The review also found that Di Maio’s figures did not accurately describe his record in the same way. As a minister, he had presented nine government bills as first signatory, while he had presented no bills as a deputy. The review reported no motions or amendments presented by him. Thus, the claim’s figures of 15 bills and zero motions and amendments for Di Maio do not all match the review’s accounting: the nine bills were government bills, not bills presented as a deputy. The review’s central qualification was that the comparison treated a deputy and a minister as though they had equivalent opportunities to introduce parliamentary business. It said ministers could not present bills as parliamentarians, motions, or amendments; they could introduce government bills in their capacity as members of the executive. The review therefore considered the comparison misleading, even though several of the numbers were close to or consistent with its findings.