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

NewtralPolitics & government

Ciudadanos empezó la legislatura pactando con PSOE y Podemos quitar las partidas de la concertada

Publisher’s rating: Verdad a medias

The claim concerns a vote on Madrid’s 2016 regional budget: Isabel Díaz Ayuso said Ciudadanos began the legislative term by joining PSOE and Podemos to remove funding from publicly subsidized private schools. The review checked the Assembly voting record and budget documents, and says it also consulted the PSOE group in the Assembly and the Ciudadanos team. The evidence supports the claim as a description of an initial vote, but not as a complete account of what happened next. On 9 December 2015, PSOE, Ciudadanos and Podemos voted for a PSOE amendment that would cut nearly €2.9 million from the allocation for concerted schools and redirect the money to investment in public education. The review says the vote is recorded in the Assembly’s proceedings. However, Ciudadanos subsequently changed course: on 17 December it put forward a separate vote opposing the cut, which passed with PP support. The amendment to cut the allocation therefore did not take effect. The final budget also contradicts the impression that the funding was ultimately removed. The review reports that the 2016 allocation for educational agreements with private schools exceeded €970 million and was 1.1% higher than in 2015. Thus, Ciudadanos did vote for the proposed cut initially, but later supported its withdrawal, and the final budget increased rather than reduced the allocation.

NewtralPolitics & government

En 2008 Obama tuvo que repetir su juramento porque se equivocó en un adverbio

Publisher’s rating: Verdad a medias

The claim attributes Obama’s need to repeat his oath to his own mistake in an adverb, and dates the event to 2008. The review distinguishes the election year from the oath-taking: Obama took office on 20 January 2009, and the US procedure required him to repeat a formula spoken by the Chief Justice. The review says the Chief Justice omitted the word “faithfully” from its prescribed position and placed it at the end. Obama repeated the formula with the adverb in that same position. Thus, the wording was not an error by Obama alone: both men contributed to the departure from the prescribed formula. The review reports that Obama repeated the oath the following day as a precaution, not because he was compelled to do so. It cites White House counsel Greg Craig, who said officials believed the oath had been properly administered but that Obama wanted to repeat it because the words had not matched the Constitution’s wording exactly. The claim therefore has a basis in the wording discrepancy and the repeat, but omits the Chief Justice’s role, the reason given for repeating it, and the fact that the oath occurred in 2009.

Fact CrescendoPolitics & government

Claim: Anbumani Ramadoss praises Godse

Publisher’s rating: Fact Crescendo Rating: False

The post under review attributed a specific statement to Anbumani Ramadoss: that Nathuram Godse was a patriotic nationalist, not a terrorist, and that Ramadoss would not accept calling him one. It paired a photograph of Ramadoss standing with Hindu Makkal Katchi leader Arjun Sampath with claims that Ramadoss had condemned Kamal Haasan’s remarks about Godse. The review says the post appeared on the Facebook page Velicham Samuga Valai Thalam N-1 on May 18, 2019. (“அதனுடன், கமலஹாசன் பேச்சுக்கு அன்புமணி கண்டனம் தெரிவித்துள்ளதாகவும், நாதுராம் கோட்சே நாட்டுப்பற்றுடைய மிகப்பெரிய தேசியவாதி என்றும் அவரை தீவிரவாதி என்று கூறுவதை ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளமாட்டோம் என்று அன்புமணி கூறியதாகவும் பதிவிடப்பட்டுள்ளது. வெளிச்சம் சமூகவலைதளம் N-1 என்ற ஃபேஸ்புக் பக்கத்தில் 2019 மே 18ம் தேதி இது வெளியிடப்பட்டுள்ளது.”) To check the attribution, the review reports searching Google for related news and checking the PMK’s official website and Ramadoss’s official Twitter account for a statement. It says those searches produced no report or official statement about the alleged remarks; the Twitter account’s last post at that point was dated May 4. The publisher also says it asked people in PMK circles, who firmly denied that Ramadoss had made such a controversial statement. (“இதுதொடர்பாக ஏதேனும் செய்தி வெளியாகி உள்ளதா என்று கூகுளில் தேடினோம். ஆனால் அப்படி ஏதும் செய்தி இல்லை. பா.ம.க அதிகாரப்பூர்வ இணையதளம், ட்விட்டரில் ஏதேனும் செய்தி வெளியாகி உள்ளதா என்று பார்த்தோம். அவருடைய அதிகாரப்பூர்வ ட்விட்டர் பக்கத்தில் மே 4ம் தேதி கடைசியாக பதிவிடப்பட்டு இருந்த.”; “இதுதொடர்பாக, பாமக வட்டாரத்தில் தகவல் விசாரித்தோம். அன்புமணி அப்படி எதுவும் சர்ச்சைக்குரிய வகையில் பேசவில்லை என்று அவர்கள் உறுதிபட தெரிவித்தனர்.”) The review further examined the Facebook page that published the claim. It describes the page as appearing to be associated with the official Velicham TV page of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, and says its posts were focused on party leader Thol. Thirumavalavan and related news. Based on those checks, the publisher concluded that the attribution to Ramadoss was misleading and that the post was false. The excerpt does not identify a recording or transcript of the alleged remarks; its account of the conclusion rests on the absence of corroborating news or official posts and the denial reported from PMK circles. (“நமக்கு கிடைத்த தகவல் அடிப்படையில், அன்புமணி ராமதாஸ் தொடர்பான பதிவு விஷமத்தனமானது, தவறானது என்று உறுதியாகிறது. முடிவு: தகுந்த ஆதாரங்கள் அடிப்படையில், மேற்கண்ட ஃபேஸ்புக் பதிவு தவறானது என்பது நிரூபிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.”)

NewtralPolitics & government

Pablo Iglesias e Irene Montero se han comprado un apartamento en Benidorm

Publisher’s rating: Falso

The claim concerned a WhatsApp message alleging that Pablo Iglesias and Irene Montero had also bought an apartment in Benidorm. The review identifies the message as accompanying a link to Viscalacant.com and says that site described itself on its homepage as a source of humor and satire. That makes the apartment allegation part of a satirical item, rather than substantiated reporting about a purchase. The review also reproduces the message’s purported explanation that the couple wanted a place with a pool for their children, along with an insulting remark about their supporters. It does not cite property records or describe an independent investigation into whether the couple owned an apartment; the evidence it gives is the satirical source of the circulating message. Its conclusion is therefore based on the nature of the item presented as the claim’s source.

Le MondePolitics & government

Le président de l’UPR a prétendu révéler un projet secret d’une Europe des nations où « il n’y aurait plus la France »

Publisher’s rating: FAUX

François Asselineau made the claim during the 22 May 2019 edition of France 2’s L’Emission politique. Invited to present an object, he showed a map he said circulated in the European Parliament, and argued that it illustrated a future in which nation-states, including France, would be broken up. The investigation identifies the map as “Nations sans Etats d’Europe” and says it traced its origin to Eurominority, a site presenting itself as a defender of European national minorities—not to a secret European institutional plan. The map does show regions redrawn: the article gives examples including Brittany, Occitania and Savoy separated from France, and Belgium divided between Wallonia and Flanders. But the investigation distinguishes regionalist demands for recognition of national minorities from advocacy of a federal Europe. It says the map belonged to the former context, while proposals for a federal Europe did not call for breaking up existing states. It also reports that Eurominority had no known connection with European institutions, despite Asselineau’s suggestion that the map circulated in Parliament. The article concludes that there was no broadly circulating plan in the European Parliament to create a federal Europe by breaking up member states. It notes that regionalist claims are treated by the EU as internal matters for member states, and that the separate federalist idea had not gained unanimity in Brussels. It also distinguishes the map from cross-border “eurorégions”: those cooperations, it says, had modest powers and budgets and did not correspond to the map’s proposed redrawing.

Sonal GuptaPolitics & government

Swaziland's king orders men to marry more wives or face jail.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerned a viral newspaper clipping alleging that King Mswati III had ordered men in Swaziland to marry at least two wives from June 2019, with jail as the penalty for noncompliance. The review identifies the clipping as a claim about an announcement in Mbabane and reports that People’s Samachar had published a story carrying the allegation. Its investigation found that People’s Samachar said its story was based on reporting by the Zambian Observer. The review describes two checks of that reporting: it says a Google keyword search led the investigators to the Zambian Observer article, and it compared the article’s then-current version with a cached version dated 14 May 2019. The cached version alleged a different number—at least five wives—and said the government would pay for wedding ceremonies and buy houses. The review notes that the current version had been updated to say the king denied ordering men to marry more wives. The decisive evidence in the review is the Swaziland government spokesperson’s denial. Percy Simelane said the reports were “malicious” and “poisonous,” denied that the king had made such an announcement, and urged journalists to behave responsibly. The review also says he called for the newspaper to retract the report. Thus the article’s account does not support the viral clipping’s purported royal order or threat of jail.

台灣事實查核中心Politics & government

媒體報導「打臉公投 同婚專法 三讀通過」

Publisher’s rating: 錯誤

The report examines whether passage of the same-sex marriage law “slapped down” the 2018 referendums. It says the Legislative Yuan passed the Act for Implementation of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 748 on May 17, 2019, and frames the dispute as whether that law conflicted with Referendum Proposals 10 and 12. The report quotes the media’s argument that the referendum votes were overridden by the governing party’s legislative advantage, then assesses that claim against the wording and conclusions of the two proposals. [S1] Proposal 10 asked whether the Civil Code’s marriage provisions should be limited to the union of one man and one woman; Proposal 12 asked whether the rights of same-sex couples to a permanent shared life should be protected through a form other than the Civil Code’s marriage provisions. The report records that both proposals passed and gives their affirmative-vote totals as 7.65 million and 6.4 million, respectively. [S1] To interpret what those results required, the report cites legal scholars Su Yen-tu and Liao Yuan-hao. Su says the referendums called for protection through a special law outside the Civil Code, without changing its definition of marriage. Liao says the referendum texts did not prescribe the special law’s particular contents. The report concludes that the 2019 law used that separate-law approach and therefore did not contradict the referendum conclusions; on that basis, it says the “slapped down” characterization was inaccurate. [S1]