Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Has this been
fact-checked?

Paste a claim or upload an image to find existing fact checks. See what fact-checkers found and read the evidence before you share.

Search fact checks ↓API & integrations ↗

Browse by topic

Explore fact checks by subject.

Latest fact checks

97,834 published reviews
日本ファクトチェックセンターElections & voting

河野太郎氏が不正に当選?

Publisher’s rating: 誤り

The review concerns posts alleging that Taro Kono, the Liberal Democratic Party candidate in Kanagawa’s 15th district, won dishonestly in the February 8, 2026, House of Representatives election. The posts pointed to an apparent lack of visible support, including a video showing people passing by while Kono spoke at a street rally, and argued that his decisive win was suspicious. The review notes that the posts spread widely on X and that some commenters treated the allegations as evidence of vote manipulation. (S1: “2026年2月8日、「支援者もいない 河野太郎がダントツ一位当選 おかしくないか」という投稿がXで拡散した。”; “拡散した投稿には、聴衆が河野氏の街頭演説に耳を傾けず素通りしている様子を映した動画がついている。”) To assess the assertion that Kono lacked supporters, the review checked reporting from broadcasters and newspapers. It says exit polls by multiple news organizations placed Kono first in the district by a wide margin over the second-place candidate. It also cautions that exit polls exclude early voting and can differ from final results, for example when voters do not answer truthfully or decline to respond. The review therefore treats the polls as evidence against the claim of having no support, not as a substitute for the final count. (S1: “報道各社の出口調査では、河野氏は神奈川15区で2位の候補に大差をつけて1位だった”; “出口調査は、期日前投票の結果を含んでおらず、本当のことを答えない人もいれば、回答を拒む人もいる。”) The review also reports that the Japan Fact-Check Center contacted the Kanagawa Prefectural Election Administration Commission. The official it consulted said no mistakes or other problems had been reported at polling stations in the prefecture. On the evidence described—exit-poll results and the commission’s response—the review found no support for the allegation that Kono’s win resulted from electoral fraud. Its account does not describe an independent recount or a direct audit of ballots; it reports the commission’s response and the published exit-poll findings. (S1: “日本ファクトチェックセンター(JFC)は神奈川県の選管に取材した。”; “担当者は「管内の開票所で、とくだんミスやトラブルなどの報告はあがっていない」と回答した。”; “河野氏は報道各社の出口調査で他の候補に大差で1位。神奈川県・選挙管理委員会も管内で開票作業にミスなどはなかったと回答している。”)

日本ファクトチェックセンターPolitics & government

中国が「中道改革連合支持」を発表?

Publisher’s rating: 誤り

The review examines a post claiming that China had announced support for the Centrist Reform Coalition. It reports that the claim spread on X on February 6, 2026; by February 7, it had been reposted more than 13,000 times and viewed over 690,000 times. The review says the post was deleted by February 9, but similar posts continued to circulate. To check whether China had expressed support, the review consulted Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs press-conference records. In a January 15 exchange, a Japanese reporter asked about reports that Komeito was considering forming a new party with another party, and whether China would maintain its relationship with Komeito if the new party no longer used that name. Spokesperson Mao Ning replied that it was a Japanese domestic matter and that she would not comment. The coalition announced its name the following day, January 16. The review presents the January 15 response as a refusal to comment, not an endorsement of the coalition. The review also checked the Ministry’s record of its February 9 press conference, after the House of Representatives election. It says the spokesperson commented on the Liberal Democratic Party’s victory and the continuation of the Takaichi government, but made no comment about the Centrist Reform Coalition. The review reports finding no news coverage of a Chinese government announcement supporting the coalition as of February 10. Taken together, the cited official records and absence of reported support led the review to conclude that the claim of an announcement was unsupported by the evidence it examined.

Where the data comes from

Fact checks come from Data Commons and link to the organizations that published them.

What you’ll find

Each result links to the original fact check. Open it to read the publisher’s findings, with summaries and supporting sources where available.

Report an error

To report an error, send the page URL and supporting evidence.