claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
'North Carolina & Virginia State line is closed. Nothing in or out.
|
Contradiction
|
Amid the coronavirus outbreak, North Carolina officials have asked residents to limit their movement. Gov. Roy Cooper issued a 'stay-at-home' order that lasts until the end of the month. And one Facebook post that's circulating on the social media site suggests there's a blockade along North Carolina's northern border. 'North Carolina & Virginia State line is closed. Nothing in or out,' the post reads. As of Wednesday, it had been shared more than 800 times. Is it true that the North Carolina-Virginia border is closed? No. This is a gross exaggeration of the situation that could add to the anxiety North Carolinians already face. No statewide order We reached out to authorities in both states. 'The Virginia State Police has not closed any borders or roads as a result of COVID-19,' Corinne Geller, public relations director for Virginia State Police, told us in an email. 'No action has been taken by the state of North Carolina to close our border with Virginia,' said Kelly Haight Connor, communications manager for the NC Department of Health and Human Services. In fact, there has been no sweeping order to close state borders either, said Steve Abbott, spokesman for NC's Department of Transportation. Local governments act However, some local NC governments have gone a step further than Cooper's order and enacted movement restrictions within their jurisdictions. The bottom image of the Facebook post was used in a story from WATE about authorities blocking a highway between Robbinsville and Tellico Plains, Tennessee. That decision to block that road was made by the Graham County Emergency Planning Committee, WATE reported. Elsewhere, Fayetteville issued a curfew. And Dare County has banned entry to visitors and non-resident property owners. A list of municipal movement restrictions can be found by clicking 'COVID-19 related information' on DriveNC.gov.
|
Our ruling A viral Facebook post says 'North Carolina & Virginia State line is closed. Nothing in or out.' The NC-Virginia border isn't closed, according to officials from both states. Nor is there a statewide ban on movement in or out of the state. The post broadcasted serious misinformation at a time when people are nervous about how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting their work and their access to essential goods. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"109675-proof-39-29b2b5f214a00a8e5b9c84d35dbabb57.jpg"
] |
'North Carolina & Virginia State line is closed. Nothing in or out.
|
Contradiction
|
Amid the coronavirus outbreak, North Carolina officials have asked residents to limit their movement. Gov. Roy Cooper issued a 'stay-at-home' order that lasts until the end of the month. And one Facebook post that's circulating on the social media site suggests there's a blockade along North Carolina's northern border. 'North Carolina & Virginia State line is closed. Nothing in or out,' the post reads. As of Wednesday, it had been shared more than 800 times. Is it true that the North Carolina-Virginia border is closed? No. This is a gross exaggeration of the situation that could add to the anxiety North Carolinians already face. No statewide order We reached out to authorities in both states. 'The Virginia State Police has not closed any borders or roads as a result of COVID-19,' Corinne Geller, public relations director for Virginia State Police, told us in an email. 'No action has been taken by the state of North Carolina to close our border with Virginia,' said Kelly Haight Connor, communications manager for the NC Department of Health and Human Services. In fact, there has been no sweeping order to close state borders either, said Steve Abbott, spokesman for NC's Department of Transportation. Local governments act However, some local NC governments have gone a step further than Cooper's order and enacted movement restrictions within their jurisdictions. The bottom image of the Facebook post was used in a story from WATE about authorities blocking a highway between Robbinsville and Tellico Plains, Tennessee. That decision to block that road was made by the Graham County Emergency Planning Committee, WATE reported. Elsewhere, Fayetteville issued a curfew. And Dare County has banned entry to visitors and non-resident property owners. A list of municipal movement restrictions can be found by clicking 'COVID-19 related information' on DriveNC.gov.
|
Our ruling A viral Facebook post says 'North Carolina & Virginia State line is closed. Nothing in or out.' The NC-Virginia border isn't closed, according to officials from both states. Nor is there a statewide ban on movement in or out of the state. The post broadcasted serious misinformation at a time when people are nervous about how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting their work and their access to essential goods. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"109675-proof-39-29b2b5f214a00a8e5b9c84d35dbabb57.jpg"
] |
Quotes Tom Brady as saying, 'If anyone on my team kneels, I quit.
|
Contradiction
|
In his more than 20 years in the NFL, Tom Brady has usually avoided making public comments on political or hot-button topics. That's why recent social media posts claiming that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers quarterback said he would quit if his teammates kneeled during the national anthem looked especially suspicious. And sure enough, the quote is fake. It originated on a satirical website. That didn't stop people from sharing it in posts without any disclaimers to indicate it was fabricated. One Twitter user posted the satire story's headline, 'Tom Brady: 'If Anyone on My Team Kneels, I Quit,'' and then wrote, 'Do you agree with him?' The phony quote originated on the America's Last Line of Defense website, which contains a disclaimer that says everything posted on it is fiction. The site is run by a man named Christopher Blair, who has been publishing fabricated stories for years and says his goal is to trick conservatives into sharing false claims on social media. RELATED: If you're fooled by fake news, this man probably wrote it Brady, a six-time Super Bowl winner, typically refrains from making public comments on non-football topics, but he told Oprah Winfrey in a June 2018 interview that he respects players who choose to kneel in protest during the national anthem before football games. 'I think there were a lot of really good, healthy conversations coming out of it in our locker room,' Brady said in the interview. 'I respect why people are doing what they're doing, and they're doing it for different reasons, and that's OK. You can do things for your reasons, they can do things for their reasons, and you have respect for that. But I thought it was great.'
|
Our ruling Posts claim that Brady said he would quit football if his teammates kneeled during the national anthem. He never said that. The quote came from a satirical website and was erroneously copied and shared in posts as if it were legitimate. We rate this Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Quotes Tom Brady as saying, 'If anyone on my team kneels, I quit.
|
Contradiction
|
In his more than 20 years in the NFL, Tom Brady has usually avoided making public comments on political or hot-button topics. That's why recent social media posts claiming that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers quarterback said he would quit if his teammates kneeled during the national anthem looked especially suspicious. And sure enough, the quote is fake. It originated on a satirical website. That didn't stop people from sharing it in posts without any disclaimers to indicate it was fabricated. One Twitter user posted the satire story's headline, 'Tom Brady: 'If Anyone on My Team Kneels, I Quit,'' and then wrote, 'Do you agree with him?' The phony quote originated on the America's Last Line of Defense website, which contains a disclaimer that says everything posted on it is fiction. The site is run by a man named Christopher Blair, who has been publishing fabricated stories for years and says his goal is to trick conservatives into sharing false claims on social media. RELATED: If you're fooled by fake news, this man probably wrote it Brady, a six-time Super Bowl winner, typically refrains from making public comments on non-football topics, but he told Oprah Winfrey in a June 2018 interview that he respects players who choose to kneel in protest during the national anthem before football games. 'I think there were a lot of really good, healthy conversations coming out of it in our locker room,' Brady said in the interview. 'I respect why people are doing what they're doing, and they're doing it for different reasons, and that's OK. You can do things for your reasons, they can do things for their reasons, and you have respect for that. But I thought it was great.'
|
Our ruling Posts claim that Brady said he would quit football if his teammates kneeled during the national anthem. He never said that. The quote came from a satirical website and was erroneously copied and shared in posts as if it were legitimate. We rate this Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Says Joe Biden's infrastructure plan 'is the Green New Deal.
|
Contradiction
|
Republican opposition to President Joe Biden's infrastructure proposal has been swift and vocal. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that as written, the $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan released March 31 was a nonstarter. The conservative PAC Citizens United put Biden's plan in the same boat as the Green New Deal, a sweeping environmental and social justice agenda that Republicans have condemned. 'Does this sound like an infrastructure bill to you?' the group tweeted March 31, with a link to a New York Times article about the proposal. 'It's not. It's the Green New Deal. ' Does this sound like an infrastructure bill to you? It's not. It's the Green New Deal. 'It is the first step in a two-part agenda to overhaul American capitalism, fight climate change and attempt to improve the productivity of the economy.'https://t.co/ajIoRCttgl- Citizens United (@Citizens_United) March 31, 2021 The Times article described Biden's plan as the first step in a legislative package that aimed to boost productivity, fight climate change and 'overhaul American capitalism.' During the presidential campaign, Biden said he does not support the Green New Deal. His current proposal is a blend of money for traditional brick-and-mortar infrastructure - roads, water supplies, broadband, etc. - clean energy and improved manufacturing, and social service infrastructure, meaning caregivers for seniors and the disabled. We called and emailed Citizens United to ask on what basis they equated the White House initiative with the Green New Deal. We did not hear back. There's overlap between the two, but also considerable differences. Differences in size and scope The Green New Deal was a House resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., that laid out a set of climate, economic and social goals. Ocasio-Cortez criticized the Biden plan, saying 'This is not nearly enough.' The 2019 resolution was not a line-by-line spending plan. But the Green New Deal inspired the crafting of the THRIVE Act, legislation due to be introduced in April by a group of Democrats in Congress to advance the goals of the resolution. The THRIVE Act does have a proposed budget. The Green New Deal Network, a group of advocacy groups, summarized it in a spreadsheet, and it comes out to much more than the American Jobs Plan. Over a 10-year span, it would spend about $9.5 trillion, or about $7 trillion more than Biden's proposal. Two of the largest differences are in the areas of clean energy and agriculture. The THRIVE Act would spend about 10 times more than the American Jobs Plan on clean energy. For agriculture, the White House has no spending line, while the THRIVE Act has $1.6 trillion to support farming that uses less fossil fuels and locks more carbon in the soil. (The recently passed stimulus law provided about $5.6 billion in aid to farmers and rural communities.) Here is our summary of how the two spending plans compare across some major categories. The American Jobs Plan also includes about $480 billion to boost manufacturing and research and development, some of which might boost clean energy. The THRIVE Act folds money for those activities into other line items, primarily its investments in clean energy. Ryan Schleeter, spokesman for Greenpeace USA, a Green New Deal Network member, said it is misleading to equate Biden's proposal with the Green New Deal. 'The American Jobs Plan is similar in intent to the THRIVE Act, but far narrower in scope and scale,' Schleeter said. Among the broader items on the original Green New Deal agenda were a guaranteed livable wage, affordable higher education and universal health care. The American Jobs Plan does not include those elements.
|
Our ruling Citizens United said that Biden's infrastructure proposal is the Green New Deal. The two plans share some common approaches, but a spending plan inspired by the Green New Deal is about four times larger than the Biden plan. The Green New Deal also advocates broader social goals that are absent from the White House infrastructure proposal. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"109680-proof-49-18ee9eccaa13bea1aeeef2b065f02adc.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden's infrastructure plan 'is the Green New Deal.
|
Contradiction
|
Republican opposition to President Joe Biden's infrastructure proposal has been swift and vocal. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that as written, the $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan released March 31 was a nonstarter. The conservative PAC Citizens United put Biden's plan in the same boat as the Green New Deal, a sweeping environmental and social justice agenda that Republicans have condemned. 'Does this sound like an infrastructure bill to you?' the group tweeted March 31, with a link to a New York Times article about the proposal. 'It's not. It's the Green New Deal. ' Does this sound like an infrastructure bill to you? It's not. It's the Green New Deal. 'It is the first step in a two-part agenda to overhaul American capitalism, fight climate change and attempt to improve the productivity of the economy.'https://t.co/ajIoRCttgl- Citizens United (@Citizens_United) March 31, 2021 The Times article described Biden's plan as the first step in a legislative package that aimed to boost productivity, fight climate change and 'overhaul American capitalism.' During the presidential campaign, Biden said he does not support the Green New Deal. His current proposal is a blend of money for traditional brick-and-mortar infrastructure - roads, water supplies, broadband, etc. - clean energy and improved manufacturing, and social service infrastructure, meaning caregivers for seniors and the disabled. We called and emailed Citizens United to ask on what basis they equated the White House initiative with the Green New Deal. We did not hear back. There's overlap between the two, but also considerable differences. Differences in size and scope The Green New Deal was a House resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., that laid out a set of climate, economic and social goals. Ocasio-Cortez criticized the Biden plan, saying 'This is not nearly enough.' The 2019 resolution was not a line-by-line spending plan. But the Green New Deal inspired the crafting of the THRIVE Act, legislation due to be introduced in April by a group of Democrats in Congress to advance the goals of the resolution. The THRIVE Act does have a proposed budget. The Green New Deal Network, a group of advocacy groups, summarized it in a spreadsheet, and it comes out to much more than the American Jobs Plan. Over a 10-year span, it would spend about $9.5 trillion, or about $7 trillion more than Biden's proposal. Two of the largest differences are in the areas of clean energy and agriculture. The THRIVE Act would spend about 10 times more than the American Jobs Plan on clean energy. For agriculture, the White House has no spending line, while the THRIVE Act has $1.6 trillion to support farming that uses less fossil fuels and locks more carbon in the soil. (The recently passed stimulus law provided about $5.6 billion in aid to farmers and rural communities.) Here is our summary of how the two spending plans compare across some major categories. The American Jobs Plan also includes about $480 billion to boost manufacturing and research and development, some of which might boost clean energy. The THRIVE Act folds money for those activities into other line items, primarily its investments in clean energy. Ryan Schleeter, spokesman for Greenpeace USA, a Green New Deal Network member, said it is misleading to equate Biden's proposal with the Green New Deal. 'The American Jobs Plan is similar in intent to the THRIVE Act, but far narrower in scope and scale,' Schleeter said. Among the broader items on the original Green New Deal agenda were a guaranteed livable wage, affordable higher education and universal health care. The American Jobs Plan does not include those elements.
|
Our ruling Citizens United said that Biden's infrastructure proposal is the Green New Deal. The two plans share some common approaches, but a spending plan inspired by the Green New Deal is about four times larger than the Biden plan. The Green New Deal also advocates broader social goals that are absent from the White House infrastructure proposal. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"109680-proof-49-18ee9eccaa13bea1aeeef2b065f02adc.jpg"
] |
Video shows 'Israel's defense system.
|
Contradiction
|
Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile defense system has intercepted rockets from Gaza but a video clip that's being shared on social media does not show the technology in action. Gunfire rumbles in the clip that was posted on Facebook on May 22 with this title: 'OMG!!! Israel's defense system.' Some social media users were rightly not convinced. 'Video game,' one person wrote. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The clip is from a video game called Arma 3. A longer clip of the game was posted on YouTube on Jan. 24 and described as a simulation of shooting down a hostile jet. On May 14, someone posted a shorter clip of the video and wrote that it was a 'created simulation' in Arma 3. 'The graphics of Arma are very good, it almost looks like real life,' the post says. The public relations manager for Bohemia Interactive, the company that makes the game, told Lead Stories that the footage in the post is an altered version of the company's game. We rate claims that it shows Israel's defense system False.
|
We rate claims that it shows Israel's defense system False.
|
[] |
Identification is required 'to get into Washington DC.
|
Contradiction
|
A recent Facebook post supporting laws requiring voters to show their identification at the polls falsely claimed that IDs are required to enter Washington D.C. 'Checking ID's to get into Washington DC,' the Feb. 26 post said. 'If we had checked ID's at the polls we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Alaina Gertz, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police Department in DC, told us that there is no such requirement. 'I do not recall a time we ever had this requirement in the city,' Gertz said. Searching online we found no evidence to support the claim in the Facebook post. The Transportation Security Administration requires adult airline passengers to show ID at airport checkpoints in order to travel - but that is a requirement nationwide and not specific to travelers headed to DC. As for voter ID laws, more than half of the United States asks or requires voters to show some form of identification at the polls, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Among those states, six, including Georgia - which was the subject of many false fraud claims in the 2020 election - have strict photo ID laws. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Videos show President Donald Trump saying 'I can't breathe.
|
Contradiction
|
Videos being posted in June 2020 on Facebook show President Donald Trump sarcastically saying 'I can't breathe,' but he wasn't mocking George Floyd - he was poking fun of political rivals in the past. The videos we saw omitted the date of Trump speaking and the context of his remarks, which could leave viewers with the false impression that Trump was ridiculing Floyd's dying words. But more complete footage of Trump's 'I can't breathe' remarks show he was mocking Democrats' debate performance in February. These posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Trump's comments are from his Feb. 20th campaign rally in Colorado Springs, Colo., the night after a Democratic primary debate where candidate Mike Bloomberg got battered by his opponents. 'Bloomberg made a fool out of himself last night. He choked!...' Trump said while grabbing his own neck and pretending to gag. ''I can't breathe! I can't breathe! Don't ask me the question please!' At the same rally, Trump also mocked then candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. 'How about Klobuchar. Did you see her? She choked. She choked,' he said. 'She couldn't breathe.' Trump has used the phrase before and accused political rivals of choking, including while mocking Mitt Romney on April 12, 2016, in a speech in Rome, N.Y. 'The RNC hasn't won an important election in a long time. We've had (Barack) Obama far too long. The last election should have been won, except Romney choked like a dog. He choked. He went, 'I can't breathe, I can't breathe,'' he said, referring to Romney's loss in the 2012 presidential race. 'Romney choked .... Romney can't recover from a choke.' (Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, won his race in 2018 for U.S. Senate in Utah.) In 2015, Trump also derided U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., as a 'lightweight choker.' Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, died after a white police officer in Minneapolis pinned Floyd's neck under his knee. Floyd can be heard repeatedly telling the officers, 'I can't breathe.' After a few minutes, Floyd becomes silent, but Officer Derek Chauvin keeps his knee in place. The phrase 'I can't breathe' became a rallying cry among demonstrators protesting against police brutality after the 2014 death of Eric Garner, who died in New York after an officer put him in a chokehold. Garner could be heard on a bystander's video saying 'I can't breathe' multiple times as he was dying. But there is no evidence that Trump was mimicking Garner when he used the phrase years later.
|
Our ruling Video being posted on social media shows Trump saying 'I can't breathe.' The video is authentic, but it's being shared in June 2020 (months after the comments were made), and is being edited in a way that loses the context of Trump's remarks. Trump was mocking political rivals, not Eric Garner or George Floyd. We rate these posts False.
|
[
"109750-proof-33-2dbb8a65f041de897bd5e2b573071af3.jpg"
] |
Videos show President Donald Trump saying 'I can't breathe.
|
Contradiction
|
Videos being posted in June 2020 on Facebook show President Donald Trump sarcastically saying 'I can't breathe,' but he wasn't mocking George Floyd - he was poking fun of political rivals in the past. The videos we saw omitted the date of Trump speaking and the context of his remarks, which could leave viewers with the false impression that Trump was ridiculing Floyd's dying words. But more complete footage of Trump's 'I can't breathe' remarks show he was mocking Democrats' debate performance in February. These posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Trump's comments are from his Feb. 20th campaign rally in Colorado Springs, Colo., the night after a Democratic primary debate where candidate Mike Bloomberg got battered by his opponents. 'Bloomberg made a fool out of himself last night. He choked!...' Trump said while grabbing his own neck and pretending to gag. ''I can't breathe! I can't breathe! Don't ask me the question please!' At the same rally, Trump also mocked then candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. 'How about Klobuchar. Did you see her? She choked. She choked,' he said. 'She couldn't breathe.' Trump has used the phrase before and accused political rivals of choking, including while mocking Mitt Romney on April 12, 2016, in a speech in Rome, N.Y. 'The RNC hasn't won an important election in a long time. We've had (Barack) Obama far too long. The last election should have been won, except Romney choked like a dog. He choked. He went, 'I can't breathe, I can't breathe,'' he said, referring to Romney's loss in the 2012 presidential race. 'Romney choked .... Romney can't recover from a choke.' (Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, won his race in 2018 for U.S. Senate in Utah.) In 2015, Trump also derided U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., as a 'lightweight choker.' Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, died after a white police officer in Minneapolis pinned Floyd's neck under his knee. Floyd can be heard repeatedly telling the officers, 'I can't breathe.' After a few minutes, Floyd becomes silent, but Officer Derek Chauvin keeps his knee in place. The phrase 'I can't breathe' became a rallying cry among demonstrators protesting against police brutality after the 2014 death of Eric Garner, who died in New York after an officer put him in a chokehold. Garner could be heard on a bystander's video saying 'I can't breathe' multiple times as he was dying. But there is no evidence that Trump was mimicking Garner when he used the phrase years later.
|
Our ruling Video being posted on social media shows Trump saying 'I can't breathe.' The video is authentic, but it's being shared in June 2020 (months after the comments were made), and is being edited in a way that loses the context of Trump's remarks. Trump was mocking political rivals, not Eric Garner or George Floyd. We rate these posts False.
|
[
"109750-proof-33-2dbb8a65f041de897bd5e2b573071af3.jpg"
] |
There will be a 'clown purge' on Oct. 30.
|
Contradiction
|
'Coulrophobia' is a term that means an abnormal fear of clowns. Not such an abnormal fear, you might think, if you saw a recent social media post warning about a clown purge on Oct. 30. 'Warning,' the post says. 'Clowns are allegedly planning their own purge the night before Halloween. Stay inside, keep all pets inside and keep all doors and windows locked. Share this post to show awareness to family and friends and anyone else who doesn't really know about the clown purge spreading across towns and countries.' The warning isn't explicit about what, exactly, a purge is. But for several years now, hoax threats about murderous purges à la the 2013 movie 'The Purge' have spread online. In the movie, all crime is legal for 12 hours. But the warning in the Facebook post is at least five years old, and there's no reason to believe it's true. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Back in 2016, Snopes debunked the clown purge rumor that was being shared online - the exact same text that appears in this year's social media posts. In 2017, the hoax included a fake Department of Homeland Security warning. 'We have escalated these threats to acts of domestic terrorism and are working closely with the Department of Homeland Security to keep Americans safe,' a supposed law enforcement officer is quoted as saying in a fake news story Snopes looked at that claimed schools businesses, and churches had received threats of a 'Halloween night purge.' So many purge warnings, and yet news reports covering the purges themselves are pretty light - and that includes clown purges. Police in Greenville, S.C., said in 2016 that the clown purge rumor in that town wasn't a credible threat. The New York Times reported that false clown reports that year were a 'contagion.' On top of that, Vox said, people were using the hoax as an excuse to scare people. One man was arrested in clown clothes and a mask in Kentucky, for example. In Australia in 2017, a man in a clown costume was sentenced for chasing a group of girls near a shopping center. Social media accounts such as 'Australian Clown Purge' fueled some anxieties, but the user wrote that clowns 'don't mean to harm anyone,' and subsequent clown sightings appeared to be isolated. They certainly didn't resemble the killing sprees in the 'Purge' movies. And searching for any credible evidence of a clown purge planned for this year, we found none. We rate this claim False.
|
We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Says Joe Biden is formally listed as criminal suspect in Ukraine case involving his son.
|
Contradiction
|
'If there were a serious criminal investigation against Joe Biden, I think we'd know about it.' That's what Lincoln Mitchell, a war and peace studies scholar at Columbia University, told PolitiFact about a social media claim being shared about the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee barely three months before Election Day. The July 22 Instagram post is an image of a tweet posted two days earlier. The tweet reads: 'BREAKING: Democratic Presidential nominee @JoeBiden is formally being listed as a criminal suspect by high level Ukraine government officials, in a major case involving his son -- Hunter.' The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) 'That is fake. Joe Biden is not listed as a suspect in any criminal case in Ukraine,' Daria Kaleniuk, executive director and co-founder of the Anti-Corruption Action Centre, a leading anti-corruption voice in Ukraine, told PolitiFact. Moreover, a court in Ukraine has no right to issue a notice of suspicion in a criminal investigation; that is done only by prosecutors, she told us. Refresher on Biden and Ukraine As we've reported: Hunter Biden, the former vice president's son, held a paid directorship with a natural gas company called Burisma Holdings, beginning in 2014. It drew attention because Burisma was owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, a minister under Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych. When Yanukovych went into exile after a popular revolution, Zlochevsky faced a variety of corruption-related investigations involving his business. In 2015, Ukraine's newly appointed prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin inherited some of the investigations. He was ousted in 2016 by the legislature. In 2018, Joe Biden said that while he was vice president, he had threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine unless Shokin was sacked. Biden said Shokin was failing to aggressively pursue allegations of corruption in Ukraine. No evidence for the claim The claim in the Instagram post cites a two-minute video from One America News Network, a conservative cable news service, that was viewed more than 1.2 million times. The video states that a Ukrainian court ordered Biden to be formally listed in a criminal case and that the order cannot be appealed. The crime, according to the video, is the alleged firing of Shokin 'in exchange for dropping an investigation' into Hunter Biden and Burisma. The report cites no sources. Lawmaker at center of Biden probe Andriy Derkach is a Ukrainian lawmaker and former member of Ukraine's pro-Russia political party who has been called the 'Ukrainian Putin.' He has alleged that audio recordings he released of conversations between Joe Biden and former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko showed corruption by Biden and treason by Poroshenko in their discussions about ousting Shokin, the prosecutor. News reports in May said Ukrainian prosecutors had launched a treason investigation of Poroshenko. President Volodymyr Zelensky said prosecutors had 'registered criminal proceedings' at the request of Derkach, and 'they will investigate.' What this means Experts say the order involving Biden is much less than it appears. Kaleniuk told us that Derkach's complaint was registered only because it had been rejected by prosecutors. 'It doesn't mean that Joe or Hunter Biden are suspects. It means that, according to Ukrainian criminal procedure code, all formal criminal complaints have to be registered by law enforcement agencies, and if they don't do so, the claimant can force prosecutors to start formal investigation through court,' she said. Ukraine expert Adrian Karatnycky, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which promotes engagement in international affairs, told PolitiFact that in Ukraine, 'criminal case files are opened pending investigations at the request of parliamentarians, on the basis media allegations, requests from civic groups and citizens. This is not the same as an actual criminal investigation. Such cases are registered and do not rise to the level of criminal investigations until the allegations are first vetted. 'Once a criminal investigation is launched on merit, the subject is informed in writing and asked to provide testimony, appear for interrogation, etc. And only after this is a criminal indictment potentially issued,' said Karatnycky, who is also managing partner at New York-based Myrmidon Group, which does consulting on Ukraine. In a news story, the Kyiv Post reported that Judge Serhiy Vovk issued the order for the investigation on April 21, but it only became public on May 21. Vovk has a 'toxic reputation' and has faced accusations of issuing illegal and politically motivated rulings, the story said.
|
Our ruling A claim that Joe Biden is formally listed as a criminal suspect in a case in Ukraine involving his son Hunter misconstrues the facts. A judge in Ukraine has ordered that a criminal case file be opened regarding Biden's efforts as vice president to get Ukraine's top prosecutor removed from office. But the opening of the file does not mean that a criminal investigation has been launched on merit and does not mean Biden has been listed formally as a criminal suspect. We rate the statement False.
|
[] |
Says Joe Biden is formally listed as criminal suspect in Ukraine case involving his son.
|
Contradiction
|
'If there were a serious criminal investigation against Joe Biden, I think we'd know about it.' That's what Lincoln Mitchell, a war and peace studies scholar at Columbia University, told PolitiFact about a social media claim being shared about the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee barely three months before Election Day. The July 22 Instagram post is an image of a tweet posted two days earlier. The tweet reads: 'BREAKING: Democratic Presidential nominee @JoeBiden is formally being listed as a criminal suspect by high level Ukraine government officials, in a major case involving his son -- Hunter.' The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) 'That is fake. Joe Biden is not listed as a suspect in any criminal case in Ukraine,' Daria Kaleniuk, executive director and co-founder of the Anti-Corruption Action Centre, a leading anti-corruption voice in Ukraine, told PolitiFact. Moreover, a court in Ukraine has no right to issue a notice of suspicion in a criminal investigation; that is done only by prosecutors, she told us. Refresher on Biden and Ukraine As we've reported: Hunter Biden, the former vice president's son, held a paid directorship with a natural gas company called Burisma Holdings, beginning in 2014. It drew attention because Burisma was owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, a minister under Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych. When Yanukovych went into exile after a popular revolution, Zlochevsky faced a variety of corruption-related investigations involving his business. In 2015, Ukraine's newly appointed prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin inherited some of the investigations. He was ousted in 2016 by the legislature. In 2018, Joe Biden said that while he was vice president, he had threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine unless Shokin was sacked. Biden said Shokin was failing to aggressively pursue allegations of corruption in Ukraine. No evidence for the claim The claim in the Instagram post cites a two-minute video from One America News Network, a conservative cable news service, that was viewed more than 1.2 million times. The video states that a Ukrainian court ordered Biden to be formally listed in a criminal case and that the order cannot be appealed. The crime, according to the video, is the alleged firing of Shokin 'in exchange for dropping an investigation' into Hunter Biden and Burisma. The report cites no sources. Lawmaker at center of Biden probe Andriy Derkach is a Ukrainian lawmaker and former member of Ukraine's pro-Russia political party who has been called the 'Ukrainian Putin.' He has alleged that audio recordings he released of conversations between Joe Biden and former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko showed corruption by Biden and treason by Poroshenko in their discussions about ousting Shokin, the prosecutor. News reports in May said Ukrainian prosecutors had launched a treason investigation of Poroshenko. President Volodymyr Zelensky said prosecutors had 'registered criminal proceedings' at the request of Derkach, and 'they will investigate.' What this means Experts say the order involving Biden is much less than it appears. Kaleniuk told us that Derkach's complaint was registered only because it had been rejected by prosecutors. 'It doesn't mean that Joe or Hunter Biden are suspects. It means that, according to Ukrainian criminal procedure code, all formal criminal complaints have to be registered by law enforcement agencies, and if they don't do so, the claimant can force prosecutors to start formal investigation through court,' she said. Ukraine expert Adrian Karatnycky, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which promotes engagement in international affairs, told PolitiFact that in Ukraine, 'criminal case files are opened pending investigations at the request of parliamentarians, on the basis media allegations, requests from civic groups and citizens. This is not the same as an actual criminal investigation. Such cases are registered and do not rise to the level of criminal investigations until the allegations are first vetted. 'Once a criminal investigation is launched on merit, the subject is informed in writing and asked to provide testimony, appear for interrogation, etc. And only after this is a criminal indictment potentially issued,' said Karatnycky, who is also managing partner at New York-based Myrmidon Group, which does consulting on Ukraine. In a news story, the Kyiv Post reported that Judge Serhiy Vovk issued the order for the investigation on April 21, but it only became public on May 21. Vovk has a 'toxic reputation' and has faced accusations of issuing illegal and politically motivated rulings, the story said.
|
Our ruling A claim that Joe Biden is formally listed as a criminal suspect in a case in Ukraine involving his son Hunter misconstrues the facts. A judge in Ukraine has ordered that a criminal case file be opened regarding Biden's efforts as vice president to get Ukraine's top prosecutor removed from office. But the opening of the file does not mean that a criminal investigation has been launched on merit and does not mean Biden has been listed formally as a criminal suspect. We rate the statement False.
|
[] |
Says Joe Biden is formally listed as criminal suspect in Ukraine case involving his son.
|
Contradiction
|
'If there were a serious criminal investigation against Joe Biden, I think we'd know about it.' That's what Lincoln Mitchell, a war and peace studies scholar at Columbia University, told PolitiFact about a social media claim being shared about the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee barely three months before Election Day. The July 22 Instagram post is an image of a tweet posted two days earlier. The tweet reads: 'BREAKING: Democratic Presidential nominee @JoeBiden is formally being listed as a criminal suspect by high level Ukraine government officials, in a major case involving his son -- Hunter.' The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) 'That is fake. Joe Biden is not listed as a suspect in any criminal case in Ukraine,' Daria Kaleniuk, executive director and co-founder of the Anti-Corruption Action Centre, a leading anti-corruption voice in Ukraine, told PolitiFact. Moreover, a court in Ukraine has no right to issue a notice of suspicion in a criminal investigation; that is done only by prosecutors, she told us. Refresher on Biden and Ukraine As we've reported: Hunter Biden, the former vice president's son, held a paid directorship with a natural gas company called Burisma Holdings, beginning in 2014. It drew attention because Burisma was owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, a minister under Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych. When Yanukovych went into exile after a popular revolution, Zlochevsky faced a variety of corruption-related investigations involving his business. In 2015, Ukraine's newly appointed prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin inherited some of the investigations. He was ousted in 2016 by the legislature. In 2018, Joe Biden said that while he was vice president, he had threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine unless Shokin was sacked. Biden said Shokin was failing to aggressively pursue allegations of corruption in Ukraine. No evidence for the claim The claim in the Instagram post cites a two-minute video from One America News Network, a conservative cable news service, that was viewed more than 1.2 million times. The video states that a Ukrainian court ordered Biden to be formally listed in a criminal case and that the order cannot be appealed. The crime, according to the video, is the alleged firing of Shokin 'in exchange for dropping an investigation' into Hunter Biden and Burisma. The report cites no sources. Lawmaker at center of Biden probe Andriy Derkach is a Ukrainian lawmaker and former member of Ukraine's pro-Russia political party who has been called the 'Ukrainian Putin.' He has alleged that audio recordings he released of conversations between Joe Biden and former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko showed corruption by Biden and treason by Poroshenko in their discussions about ousting Shokin, the prosecutor. News reports in May said Ukrainian prosecutors had launched a treason investigation of Poroshenko. President Volodymyr Zelensky said prosecutors had 'registered criminal proceedings' at the request of Derkach, and 'they will investigate.' What this means Experts say the order involving Biden is much less than it appears. Kaleniuk told us that Derkach's complaint was registered only because it had been rejected by prosecutors. 'It doesn't mean that Joe or Hunter Biden are suspects. It means that, according to Ukrainian criminal procedure code, all formal criminal complaints have to be registered by law enforcement agencies, and if they don't do so, the claimant can force prosecutors to start formal investigation through court,' she said. Ukraine expert Adrian Karatnycky, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which promotes engagement in international affairs, told PolitiFact that in Ukraine, 'criminal case files are opened pending investigations at the request of parliamentarians, on the basis media allegations, requests from civic groups and citizens. This is not the same as an actual criminal investigation. Such cases are registered and do not rise to the level of criminal investigations until the allegations are first vetted. 'Once a criminal investigation is launched on merit, the subject is informed in writing and asked to provide testimony, appear for interrogation, etc. And only after this is a criminal indictment potentially issued,' said Karatnycky, who is also managing partner at New York-based Myrmidon Group, which does consulting on Ukraine. In a news story, the Kyiv Post reported that Judge Serhiy Vovk issued the order for the investigation on April 21, but it only became public on May 21. Vovk has a 'toxic reputation' and has faced accusations of issuing illegal and politically motivated rulings, the story said.
|
Our ruling A claim that Joe Biden is formally listed as a criminal suspect in a case in Ukraine involving his son Hunter misconstrues the facts. A judge in Ukraine has ordered that a criminal case file be opened regarding Biden's efforts as vice president to get Ukraine's top prosecutor removed from office. But the opening of the file does not mean that a criminal investigation has been launched on merit and does not mean Biden has been listed formally as a criminal suspect. We rate the statement False.
|
[] |
'As a lawyer working in Korea, Nate McMurray helped send American jobs to Asia'
|
Contradiction
|
Republican Chris Jacobs, running for Congress in New York's 27th District, uses a familiar line of attack against his opponent, Democrat Nate McMurray. The Jacobs ad, 'Steals,' says: 'As a lawyer working in Korea, Nate McMurray helped send American jobs to Asia, supporting trade agreements costing us thousands of jobs. McMurray even helped American companies hire foreign workers.' Just two years ago, when Rep. Chris Collins campaigned against McMurray, the Collins camp sent direct mail to voters with the claim 'Nate McMurray lobbied to send our jobs to China. (And Korea, too.)' Voters in all or part of eight counties in Western New York cast their ballots in a special election on June 23. We wanted to fact-check this persistent claim, specifically that 'As a lawyer working in Korea, Nate McMurray helped send American jobs to Asia.' Jacobs' argument McMurray worked in Asia as a corporate lawyer from 2006 to 2013, first in China, then in Korea. In Korea, he helped foreign companies invest there and resolve employment issues. We reached out to the Jacobs campaign about the ad, and received information regarding McMurray's involvement with a chamber of commerce when he worked as a lawyer in Korea, as well as a list of news articles that detailed how companies moved operations to Asia, or established new operations there. The Jacobs campaign says that in 2011, McMurray was a vice chairman of the Foreign Investment Committee of The American Chamber of Commerce in Korea, which we verified through a document from the chamber. The chamber paid roughly $30,000 to lobby for the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, according to a 2011 U.S. Senate Lobbying Report, provided by Jacobs. In their memo on the ad, the GOP campaign also sent articles that stated that the U.S.-Korea trade deal from 2012, supported by the chamber, led to a more than doubling of the U.S. goods trade deficit, according to Reuters, and 'more than 95,000 lost U.S. jobs,' according to an analysis from the union-backed Economic Policy Institute in 2016. (The White House said in 2018 that the goods trade deficit grew by 75 percent under the 2012 agreement.) The biggest source of the trade deficit was related to car sales, according to Vox in 2018. The Jacobs memo also has links to articles about Western New York companies that moved their operations, though many of these moves happened before the trade deal took effect in March 2012, or the work went to countries other than South Korea. These examples included American Axle closing its Cheektowaga plant in 2011, and Ford laying off 150 workers at its Buffalo stamping plant, also in 2011. Also on the list was New Era's shutdown of its Derby plant in 2019, and its move to manufacturing in China, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Haiti, as well as an operation in Miami. In another example from the memo, New Era opened an office in South Korea around 2013, leading to retail stores there. The Jacobs campaign's argument is that because McMurray was a co-chair of a committee in the chamber, he had something to do with the chamber's lobbying activities in favor of the U.S.-Korea trade agreement. But in 2011, the chamber had around 2,000 individual members and 1,000 member companies. In 2018, McMurray's campaign told us that McMurray did not participate in lobbying activities. McMurray's work As a lawyer in Korea, McMurray helped American companies enter the Korean market, according to Thomas Pinansky, a former partner at Barun Law in Seoul. Pinansky recruited McMurray and spoke to PolitiFact in 2018. McMurray helped American companies succeed in the Korean market, historically a difficult market to penetrate, Pinansky said. 'He would have no authority to export jobs, U.S. jobs overseas,' he said. Two years ago, McMurray's former campaign manager told us about McMurray's work as a lawyer in Asia, and said: 'In none of these positions did he have the authority to outsource any jobs.' When PolitiFact fact-checked a claim that McMurray 'lobbied to send our jobs' to China and Korea, we found it to be False.
|
Our ruling Repeating a talking point from the Collins campaign, the Jacobs campaign took aim at McMurray for his previous job that it says helped send American jobs to Asia. This claim is becoming an old chestnut on the campaign trail whenever McMurray is on the ballot. We rated it False when the Collins campaign made it. And nothing Jacobs says now is making it any more credible. McMurray was one of thousands of members of a business association that supported the U.S.-Korea trade agreement, which took effect in March 2012. After the trade deal took effect, the trade deficit grew. But nothing Jacobs provided showed that McMurray was responsible for American jobs moving to Asia, whether it was New Era moving their manufacturing offshore, but not to Korea, or New Era seeking to sell their products in retail stores in Korea, or American Axle closing its Cheektowaga plant months before U.S.-Korea trade deal even took effect. It was False two years ago. And it remains False now.
|
[] |
'As a lawyer working in Korea, Nate McMurray helped send American jobs to Asia'
|
Contradiction
|
Republican Chris Jacobs, running for Congress in New York's 27th District, uses a familiar line of attack against his opponent, Democrat Nate McMurray. The Jacobs ad, 'Steals,' says: 'As a lawyer working in Korea, Nate McMurray helped send American jobs to Asia, supporting trade agreements costing us thousands of jobs. McMurray even helped American companies hire foreign workers.' Just two years ago, when Rep. Chris Collins campaigned against McMurray, the Collins camp sent direct mail to voters with the claim 'Nate McMurray lobbied to send our jobs to China. (And Korea, too.)' Voters in all or part of eight counties in Western New York cast their ballots in a special election on June 23. We wanted to fact-check this persistent claim, specifically that 'As a lawyer working in Korea, Nate McMurray helped send American jobs to Asia.' Jacobs' argument McMurray worked in Asia as a corporate lawyer from 2006 to 2013, first in China, then in Korea. In Korea, he helped foreign companies invest there and resolve employment issues. We reached out to the Jacobs campaign about the ad, and received information regarding McMurray's involvement with a chamber of commerce when he worked as a lawyer in Korea, as well as a list of news articles that detailed how companies moved operations to Asia, or established new operations there. The Jacobs campaign says that in 2011, McMurray was a vice chairman of the Foreign Investment Committee of The American Chamber of Commerce in Korea, which we verified through a document from the chamber. The chamber paid roughly $30,000 to lobby for the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, according to a 2011 U.S. Senate Lobbying Report, provided by Jacobs. In their memo on the ad, the GOP campaign also sent articles that stated that the U.S.-Korea trade deal from 2012, supported by the chamber, led to a more than doubling of the U.S. goods trade deficit, according to Reuters, and 'more than 95,000 lost U.S. jobs,' according to an analysis from the union-backed Economic Policy Institute in 2016. (The White House said in 2018 that the goods trade deficit grew by 75 percent under the 2012 agreement.) The biggest source of the trade deficit was related to car sales, according to Vox in 2018. The Jacobs memo also has links to articles about Western New York companies that moved their operations, though many of these moves happened before the trade deal took effect in March 2012, or the work went to countries other than South Korea. These examples included American Axle closing its Cheektowaga plant in 2011, and Ford laying off 150 workers at its Buffalo stamping plant, also in 2011. Also on the list was New Era's shutdown of its Derby plant in 2019, and its move to manufacturing in China, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Haiti, as well as an operation in Miami. In another example from the memo, New Era opened an office in South Korea around 2013, leading to retail stores there. The Jacobs campaign's argument is that because McMurray was a co-chair of a committee in the chamber, he had something to do with the chamber's lobbying activities in favor of the U.S.-Korea trade agreement. But in 2011, the chamber had around 2,000 individual members and 1,000 member companies. In 2018, McMurray's campaign told us that McMurray did not participate in lobbying activities. McMurray's work As a lawyer in Korea, McMurray helped American companies enter the Korean market, according to Thomas Pinansky, a former partner at Barun Law in Seoul. Pinansky recruited McMurray and spoke to PolitiFact in 2018. McMurray helped American companies succeed in the Korean market, historically a difficult market to penetrate, Pinansky said. 'He would have no authority to export jobs, U.S. jobs overseas,' he said. Two years ago, McMurray's former campaign manager told us about McMurray's work as a lawyer in Asia, and said: 'In none of these positions did he have the authority to outsource any jobs.' When PolitiFact fact-checked a claim that McMurray 'lobbied to send our jobs' to China and Korea, we found it to be False.
|
Our ruling Repeating a talking point from the Collins campaign, the Jacobs campaign took aim at McMurray for his previous job that it says helped send American jobs to Asia. This claim is becoming an old chestnut on the campaign trail whenever McMurray is on the ballot. We rated it False when the Collins campaign made it. And nothing Jacobs says now is making it any more credible. McMurray was one of thousands of members of a business association that supported the U.S.-Korea trade agreement, which took effect in March 2012. After the trade deal took effect, the trade deficit grew. But nothing Jacobs provided showed that McMurray was responsible for American jobs moving to Asia, whether it was New Era moving their manufacturing offshore, but not to Korea, or New Era seeking to sell their products in retail stores in Korea, or American Axle closing its Cheektowaga plant months before U.S.-Korea trade deal even took effect. It was False two years ago. And it remains False now.
|
[] |
'As a lawyer working in Korea, Nate McMurray helped send American jobs to Asia'
|
Contradiction
|
Republican Chris Jacobs, running for Congress in New York's 27th District, uses a familiar line of attack against his opponent, Democrat Nate McMurray. The Jacobs ad, 'Steals,' says: 'As a lawyer working in Korea, Nate McMurray helped send American jobs to Asia, supporting trade agreements costing us thousands of jobs. McMurray even helped American companies hire foreign workers.' Just two years ago, when Rep. Chris Collins campaigned against McMurray, the Collins camp sent direct mail to voters with the claim 'Nate McMurray lobbied to send our jobs to China. (And Korea, too.)' Voters in all or part of eight counties in Western New York cast their ballots in a special election on June 23. We wanted to fact-check this persistent claim, specifically that 'As a lawyer working in Korea, Nate McMurray helped send American jobs to Asia.' Jacobs' argument McMurray worked in Asia as a corporate lawyer from 2006 to 2013, first in China, then in Korea. In Korea, he helped foreign companies invest there and resolve employment issues. We reached out to the Jacobs campaign about the ad, and received information regarding McMurray's involvement with a chamber of commerce when he worked as a lawyer in Korea, as well as a list of news articles that detailed how companies moved operations to Asia, or established new operations there. The Jacobs campaign says that in 2011, McMurray was a vice chairman of the Foreign Investment Committee of The American Chamber of Commerce in Korea, which we verified through a document from the chamber. The chamber paid roughly $30,000 to lobby for the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, according to a 2011 U.S. Senate Lobbying Report, provided by Jacobs. In their memo on the ad, the GOP campaign also sent articles that stated that the U.S.-Korea trade deal from 2012, supported by the chamber, led to a more than doubling of the U.S. goods trade deficit, according to Reuters, and 'more than 95,000 lost U.S. jobs,' according to an analysis from the union-backed Economic Policy Institute in 2016. (The White House said in 2018 that the goods trade deficit grew by 75 percent under the 2012 agreement.) The biggest source of the trade deficit was related to car sales, according to Vox in 2018. The Jacobs memo also has links to articles about Western New York companies that moved their operations, though many of these moves happened before the trade deal took effect in March 2012, or the work went to countries other than South Korea. These examples included American Axle closing its Cheektowaga plant in 2011, and Ford laying off 150 workers at its Buffalo stamping plant, also in 2011. Also on the list was New Era's shutdown of its Derby plant in 2019, and its move to manufacturing in China, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Haiti, as well as an operation in Miami. In another example from the memo, New Era opened an office in South Korea around 2013, leading to retail stores there. The Jacobs campaign's argument is that because McMurray was a co-chair of a committee in the chamber, he had something to do with the chamber's lobbying activities in favor of the U.S.-Korea trade agreement. But in 2011, the chamber had around 2,000 individual members and 1,000 member companies. In 2018, McMurray's campaign told us that McMurray did not participate in lobbying activities. McMurray's work As a lawyer in Korea, McMurray helped American companies enter the Korean market, according to Thomas Pinansky, a former partner at Barun Law in Seoul. Pinansky recruited McMurray and spoke to PolitiFact in 2018. McMurray helped American companies succeed in the Korean market, historically a difficult market to penetrate, Pinansky said. 'He would have no authority to export jobs, U.S. jobs overseas,' he said. Two years ago, McMurray's former campaign manager told us about McMurray's work as a lawyer in Asia, and said: 'In none of these positions did he have the authority to outsource any jobs.' When PolitiFact fact-checked a claim that McMurray 'lobbied to send our jobs' to China and Korea, we found it to be False.
|
Our ruling Repeating a talking point from the Collins campaign, the Jacobs campaign took aim at McMurray for his previous job that it says helped send American jobs to Asia. This claim is becoming an old chestnut on the campaign trail whenever McMurray is on the ballot. We rated it False when the Collins campaign made it. And nothing Jacobs says now is making it any more credible. McMurray was one of thousands of members of a business association that supported the U.S.-Korea trade agreement, which took effect in March 2012. After the trade deal took effect, the trade deficit grew. But nothing Jacobs provided showed that McMurray was responsible for American jobs moving to Asia, whether it was New Era moving their manufacturing offshore, but not to Korea, or New Era seeking to sell their products in retail stores in Korea, or American Axle closing its Cheektowaga plant months before U.S.-Korea trade deal even took effect. It was False two years ago. And it remains False now.
|
[] |
News photo from stay-at-home protest was doctored to add Confederate flag.
|
Contradiction
|
Conspiracies about mainstream news media are flourishing amid the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 'What a bunch of BS,' screamed a Facebook post about a news photo from a Wisconsin rally against stay-at-home orders. Sharing two images from the demonstration, the post essentially claims the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel doctored a photo to put a Confederate Battle Flag in the hands of one protester. But the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did not alter its photo. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Here's what happened. The Journal Sentinel, which publishes PolitiFact Wisconsin, posted a news story about the April 18 rally in Brookfield, a Milwaukee suburb. Nearly 1,000 people packed the sidewalk adjacent to a busy thoroughfare, most shoulder to shoulder, to protest Gov. Tony Evers' decision to extend Wisconsin's safer-at-home order until May 26. The Facebook post shows two photographs from the rally side by side - one from the Journal Sentinel and one said to be taken by the poster's daughter. The Journal Sentinel photo shows a man wearing a plaid shirt and jeans among a group of people and holding two flags - a Confederate flag and just above it, a yellow flag that is harder to make out. The other photo with the post shows a man, also in a plaid shirt and jeans, who is not so close to other people. He is clearly holding only a yellow flag. The implication is that in its photo, the Journal Sentinel added the Confederate flag into the man's hands. What you're really seeing The two-flag photo is one of 13 images in a photo gallery that accompanied the Journal Sentinel's news story about the protest. After Facebook posts appeared making the specious claim, the Journal Sentinel published an article denying that its photo was doctored. The article explained what happened: On April 18, the reporter who wrote the news story sent the photo in question from his iPhone to an editor who loaded it directly into the Journal Sentinel's publishing system. The photo shows the man holding a yellow Don't Tread on Me flag and a Confederate flag together on one pole. On April 19, a Journal Sentinel photo editor examined the photo and determined it was never edited in Photoshop, even to receive the basic color-toning for reproduction. The article also pointed out that other images taken at the rally, including two videos posted on social media, show a man with the two flags. it has gotten much larger pic.twitter.com/vaOtRMrnxf- Zach Walsh (@Zachwalsh9) April 18, 2020 (Confederate flag is visible at the 9-second mark in this tweeted video.) One video shows a man wearing a plaid shirt and baseball cap, holding just a Don't Tread on Me flag, a few feet away from the man holding the Don't Tread on Me and the Confederate flags. Another video also shows a Confederate flag flying below a Don't Tread on Me flag, with another Don't Tread on Me flag nearby. The Journal Sentinel reporter on the scene also captured an image in which both men can be seen. The photos are time-stamped at 11:40 and 11:41 a.m. PolitiFact did an Error Level Analysis on the image in question, using FotoForensics, and found that the flags and the people were part of the same JPEG compression. The photo's metadata also does not show that Photoshop was used. In English: There's no forensic evidence that the image was doctored.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post showing two photographs from a rally that protested coronavirus stay-at-home orders suggests that one of the photos, taken by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, was doctored. Our analysis found the photo, which shows one man holding a Don't Tread on Me flag and a Confederate flag, was not altered. The person is visible in several other posts we found that were not from the newspaper. We rate the statement Pants on Fire.
|
[
"109781-proof-13-7852ec87fe6a4851941c435c5ec34f03.jpg"
] |
News photo from stay-at-home protest was doctored to add Confederate flag.
|
Contradiction
|
Conspiracies about mainstream news media are flourishing amid the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 'What a bunch of BS,' screamed a Facebook post about a news photo from a Wisconsin rally against stay-at-home orders. Sharing two images from the demonstration, the post essentially claims the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel doctored a photo to put a Confederate Battle Flag in the hands of one protester. But the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did not alter its photo. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Here's what happened. The Journal Sentinel, which publishes PolitiFact Wisconsin, posted a news story about the April 18 rally in Brookfield, a Milwaukee suburb. Nearly 1,000 people packed the sidewalk adjacent to a busy thoroughfare, most shoulder to shoulder, to protest Gov. Tony Evers' decision to extend Wisconsin's safer-at-home order until May 26. The Facebook post shows two photographs from the rally side by side - one from the Journal Sentinel and one said to be taken by the poster's daughter. The Journal Sentinel photo shows a man wearing a plaid shirt and jeans among a group of people and holding two flags - a Confederate flag and just above it, a yellow flag that is harder to make out. The other photo with the post shows a man, also in a plaid shirt and jeans, who is not so close to other people. He is clearly holding only a yellow flag. The implication is that in its photo, the Journal Sentinel added the Confederate flag into the man's hands. What you're really seeing The two-flag photo is one of 13 images in a photo gallery that accompanied the Journal Sentinel's news story about the protest. After Facebook posts appeared making the specious claim, the Journal Sentinel published an article denying that its photo was doctored. The article explained what happened: On April 18, the reporter who wrote the news story sent the photo in question from his iPhone to an editor who loaded it directly into the Journal Sentinel's publishing system. The photo shows the man holding a yellow Don't Tread on Me flag and a Confederate flag together on one pole. On April 19, a Journal Sentinel photo editor examined the photo and determined it was never edited in Photoshop, even to receive the basic color-toning for reproduction. The article also pointed out that other images taken at the rally, including two videos posted on social media, show a man with the two flags. it has gotten much larger pic.twitter.com/vaOtRMrnxf- Zach Walsh (@Zachwalsh9) April 18, 2020 (Confederate flag is visible at the 9-second mark in this tweeted video.) One video shows a man wearing a plaid shirt and baseball cap, holding just a Don't Tread on Me flag, a few feet away from the man holding the Don't Tread on Me and the Confederate flags. Another video also shows a Confederate flag flying below a Don't Tread on Me flag, with another Don't Tread on Me flag nearby. The Journal Sentinel reporter on the scene also captured an image in which both men can be seen. The photos are time-stamped at 11:40 and 11:41 a.m. PolitiFact did an Error Level Analysis on the image in question, using FotoForensics, and found that the flags and the people were part of the same JPEG compression. The photo's metadata also does not show that Photoshop was used. In English: There's no forensic evidence that the image was doctored.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post showing two photographs from a rally that protested coronavirus stay-at-home orders suggests that one of the photos, taken by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, was doctored. Our analysis found the photo, which shows one man holding a Don't Tread on Me flag and a Confederate flag, was not altered. The person is visible in several other posts we found that were not from the newspaper. We rate the statement Pants on Fire.
|
[
"109781-proof-13-7852ec87fe6a4851941c435c5ec34f03.jpg"
] |
A wind turbine 'could never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.
|
Contradiction
|
Wind farms are a pillar of America's climate change strategy. They now produce over 8% of the nation's electricity, and their output is expected to nearly double over the next decade. A Facebook post casts wind as a losing proposition. 'A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it,' a Sept. 16 version of the post says. This qualifies as a zombie claim. In 2019, we found an earlier version False, but it walks again. The image is topped with a striking photo of a wind turbine on fire (it comes from a March 2020 fire in Texas) and gives some details. 'A two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tonnes of steel that required 300 tonnes of iron ore and 170 tonnes of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons,' the post says. (We corrected several typos in the text.) The post is wrong. From construction to demolition, the energy payback on a windmill can be less than a year. The highest estimate we found was a bit under six years. A cherry picked quote The numbers in the post come from a 2009 collection of essays on climate change and Canada. J. David Hughes, a geoscientist with the Geological Survey of Canada, wrote about the total energy package for wind turbines, a perspective that included how much energy it took to make the turbine, not just the energy it produced when it was operational. 'The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it?' Hughes wrote. Hughes's focus was on the need to put turbines in places where the wind blows. 'At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less,' Hughes wrote. 'In a poor location, energy payback may be never.' The Facebook post skipped over that sentence, and jumped to Hughes' warning, that in the wrong spot, a windmill 'could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.' (There's a logical breakdown here: If a turbine is spinning, then the wind must be blowing, and the turbine is producing power.) Also, wind turbine technology has changed greatly over the past 10 years, as engineers have developed more efficient models and gained experience in siting windmills. The 2009 material is dated. A windmill's lifecycle energy story For decades, researchers have been assessing all the steps that go into turning wind into electricity. Study after study has found that when all is said and done, a properly placed turbine nets out positive. A 2016 study from Danish engineers looked at onshore and offshore turbines and wrote, 'The energy payback time was found to be less than 1 year for all technologies.' A group of engineers in Texas did similar work and reported that 'the payback times for CO2 and energy consumption range from 6 to 14 and 6 to 17 months,' with on-shore facilities having a shorter payback. There are many steps in the making of a wind turbine. The raw materials need to be mined, those materials need to be turned into rotors and towers and those parts need to be shipped. It takes energy to install a turbine, and a small bit of energy to operate it. And at the very end - after 20 to 30 years - it has to be dismantled and recycled. Research finds that as much as 86% of the total energy comes in the manufacturing step, although some studies found lower percentages. There are a few key variables, including how long the wind turbine lasts - manufacturing costs are baked in, and the longer a turbine lasts, the more years those costs get spread over. Another key variable is the wind. Turbines may have a predicted output, but the wind determines what really happens. One 2019 study from engineers at the University of Texas at Arlington factored in the wind speeds from a working wind farm in Texas with 200 turbines. It examined in detail the energy it took to move the turbine components from where they were made in Spain to the Lone Star Wind Farm near Abilene, Texas. It also measured the energy it took to get raw materials to the factories in Spain where manufacturing took place. The wind at the Lone Star Wind Farm varies and the researchers used that data to find the actual average wind speed through the year. They calculated a turbine that lasts 20 years will reach a full energy payback in less than six years.
|
Our ruling A viral image said that a wind turbine 'could never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.' The claim cherry-picked a quote from a book and distorted its meaning. Every study of the lifecycle of wind turbines finds that they produce more energy than it took to produce them. Most analyses put the energy payback period at about a year or so. The most conservative, real-world assessment we found calculated that wind turbines in Texas produced more electricity than it took to build them after about six years. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"109784-proof-42-1e49477e156fb6d196e09ebd7e93aef4.jpg"
] |
A wind turbine 'could never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.
|
Contradiction
|
Wind farms are a pillar of America's climate change strategy. They now produce over 8% of the nation's electricity, and their output is expected to nearly double over the next decade. A Facebook post casts wind as a losing proposition. 'A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it,' a Sept. 16 version of the post says. This qualifies as a zombie claim. In 2019, we found an earlier version False, but it walks again. The image is topped with a striking photo of a wind turbine on fire (it comes from a March 2020 fire in Texas) and gives some details. 'A two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tonnes of steel that required 300 tonnes of iron ore and 170 tonnes of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons,' the post says. (We corrected several typos in the text.) The post is wrong. From construction to demolition, the energy payback on a windmill can be less than a year. The highest estimate we found was a bit under six years. A cherry picked quote The numbers in the post come from a 2009 collection of essays on climate change and Canada. J. David Hughes, a geoscientist with the Geological Survey of Canada, wrote about the total energy package for wind turbines, a perspective that included how much energy it took to make the turbine, not just the energy it produced when it was operational. 'The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it?' Hughes wrote. Hughes's focus was on the need to put turbines in places where the wind blows. 'At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less,' Hughes wrote. 'In a poor location, energy payback may be never.' The Facebook post skipped over that sentence, and jumped to Hughes' warning, that in the wrong spot, a windmill 'could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.' (There's a logical breakdown here: If a turbine is spinning, then the wind must be blowing, and the turbine is producing power.) Also, wind turbine technology has changed greatly over the past 10 years, as engineers have developed more efficient models and gained experience in siting windmills. The 2009 material is dated. A windmill's lifecycle energy story For decades, researchers have been assessing all the steps that go into turning wind into electricity. Study after study has found that when all is said and done, a properly placed turbine nets out positive. A 2016 study from Danish engineers looked at onshore and offshore turbines and wrote, 'The energy payback time was found to be less than 1 year for all technologies.' A group of engineers in Texas did similar work and reported that 'the payback times for CO2 and energy consumption range from 6 to 14 and 6 to 17 months,' with on-shore facilities having a shorter payback. There are many steps in the making of a wind turbine. The raw materials need to be mined, those materials need to be turned into rotors and towers and those parts need to be shipped. It takes energy to install a turbine, and a small bit of energy to operate it. And at the very end - after 20 to 30 years - it has to be dismantled and recycled. Research finds that as much as 86% of the total energy comes in the manufacturing step, although some studies found lower percentages. There are a few key variables, including how long the wind turbine lasts - manufacturing costs are baked in, and the longer a turbine lasts, the more years those costs get spread over. Another key variable is the wind. Turbines may have a predicted output, but the wind determines what really happens. One 2019 study from engineers at the University of Texas at Arlington factored in the wind speeds from a working wind farm in Texas with 200 turbines. It examined in detail the energy it took to move the turbine components from where they were made in Spain to the Lone Star Wind Farm near Abilene, Texas. It also measured the energy it took to get raw materials to the factories in Spain where manufacturing took place. The wind at the Lone Star Wind Farm varies and the researchers used that data to find the actual average wind speed through the year. They calculated a turbine that lasts 20 years will reach a full energy payback in less than six years.
|
Our ruling A viral image said that a wind turbine 'could never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.' The claim cherry-picked a quote from a book and distorted its meaning. Every study of the lifecycle of wind turbines finds that they produce more energy than it took to produce them. Most analyses put the energy payback period at about a year or so. The most conservative, real-world assessment we found calculated that wind turbines in Texas produced more electricity than it took to build them after about six years. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"109784-proof-42-1e49477e156fb6d196e09ebd7e93aef4.jpg"
] |
Says photo of beaten woman is Aracely Henriquez, a pregnant woman who George Floyd assaulted during an armed robbery.
|
Contradiction
|
In the wake of worldwide protests against police brutality following the death of George Floyd, some internet users are spreading misinformation about Floyd's arrest record. Floyd had multiple brushes with the law and was sentenced to serve five years in prison for his involvement in an armed robbery in 2007 while he still lived in Houston. But the facts of the incident have gotten muddled on the internet, and some posts claim the woman robbed, Aracely Henriquez, was pregnant and that Floyd beat her and threatened to kill her baby. Social media users are also sharing a photo of a woman with bruises and cuts on her face, claiming it's Henriquez. Here, the photo appears on Instagram. We won't repost the text or image here, because the photo is not of Henriquez, and several of the details about the robbery are either made up or exaggerated. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The woman in the photo is Andrea Sicignano, an American student who was assaulted and raped in Madrid in 2018. Sicignano posted the photo on her Facebook page and Spanish news outlet El Pais published a story about the incident. On June 12, 2020, Sicignano took to Facebook and said her photo is being misused to spread misinformation about Floyd. 'There has been a photo of me circulating around on the internet since yesterday. The photo was taken of me in a hospital bed in Spain after being violently beaten and raped by a stranger,' Sicignano wrote in the post. 'I posted my story over a year ago to use my voice to spread awareness and encourage other women to speak out about the injustices they've faced. Today my photo is being used as political propaganda/click bait to make people believe that George Floyd deserved to die. I am disgusted and humiliated, not for myself, but for my country.' Meanwhile, some of the assertions made about the details of the robbery are not accurate. Floyd was arrested in 2007 for his involvement in an armed home robbery and was sentenced to five years in prison, but court records do not indicate that Henriquez was pregnant at the time of the incident, or that Floyd threatened to kill her baby. According to the police's probable cause report, Henriquez, another woman and a toddler were home at the time of the incident and Floyd was one of multiple men who forced their way into the home, during which he threatened her with a gun. She was injured during the home invasion, but the report says her injuries were inflicted by another man, not Floyd.
|
Our ruling An Instagram post claims an image of a woman with bruises on her face is Aracely Henriquez, the victim of an armed home robbery that Floyd was involved in. But the image isn't of Henriquez. It shows an American student who was assaulted in Madrid in 2018 . Floyd served five years in prison for the armed robbery, but there is no evidence that Henriquez was pregnant at the time, and her injuries were inflicted by another man. We rate this False.
|
[] |
Says photo of beaten woman is Aracely Henriquez, a pregnant woman who George Floyd assaulted during an armed robbery.
|
Contradiction
|
In the wake of worldwide protests against police brutality following the death of George Floyd, some internet users are spreading misinformation about Floyd's arrest record. Floyd had multiple brushes with the law and was sentenced to serve five years in prison for his involvement in an armed robbery in 2007 while he still lived in Houston. But the facts of the incident have gotten muddled on the internet, and some posts claim the woman robbed, Aracely Henriquez, was pregnant and that Floyd beat her and threatened to kill her baby. Social media users are also sharing a photo of a woman with bruises and cuts on her face, claiming it's Henriquez. Here, the photo appears on Instagram. We won't repost the text or image here, because the photo is not of Henriquez, and several of the details about the robbery are either made up or exaggerated. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The woman in the photo is Andrea Sicignano, an American student who was assaulted and raped in Madrid in 2018. Sicignano posted the photo on her Facebook page and Spanish news outlet El Pais published a story about the incident. On June 12, 2020, Sicignano took to Facebook and said her photo is being misused to spread misinformation about Floyd. 'There has been a photo of me circulating around on the internet since yesterday. The photo was taken of me in a hospital bed in Spain after being violently beaten and raped by a stranger,' Sicignano wrote in the post. 'I posted my story over a year ago to use my voice to spread awareness and encourage other women to speak out about the injustices they've faced. Today my photo is being used as political propaganda/click bait to make people believe that George Floyd deserved to die. I am disgusted and humiliated, not for myself, but for my country.' Meanwhile, some of the assertions made about the details of the robbery are not accurate. Floyd was arrested in 2007 for his involvement in an armed home robbery and was sentenced to five years in prison, but court records do not indicate that Henriquez was pregnant at the time of the incident, or that Floyd threatened to kill her baby. According to the police's probable cause report, Henriquez, another woman and a toddler were home at the time of the incident and Floyd was one of multiple men who forced their way into the home, during which he threatened her with a gun. She was injured during the home invasion, but the report says her injuries were inflicted by another man, not Floyd.
|
Our ruling An Instagram post claims an image of a woman with bruises on her face is Aracely Henriquez, the victim of an armed home robbery that Floyd was involved in. But the image isn't of Henriquez. It shows an American student who was assaulted in Madrid in 2018 . Floyd served five years in prison for the armed robbery, but there is no evidence that Henriquez was pregnant at the time, and her injuries were inflicted by another man. We rate this False.
|
[] |
Says photo of beaten woman is Aracely Henriquez, a pregnant woman who George Floyd assaulted during an armed robbery.
|
Contradiction
|
In the wake of worldwide protests against police brutality following the death of George Floyd, some internet users are spreading misinformation about Floyd's arrest record. Floyd had multiple brushes with the law and was sentenced to serve five years in prison for his involvement in an armed robbery in 2007 while he still lived in Houston. But the facts of the incident have gotten muddled on the internet, and some posts claim the woman robbed, Aracely Henriquez, was pregnant and that Floyd beat her and threatened to kill her baby. Social media users are also sharing a photo of a woman with bruises and cuts on her face, claiming it's Henriquez. Here, the photo appears on Instagram. We won't repost the text or image here, because the photo is not of Henriquez, and several of the details about the robbery are either made up or exaggerated. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The woman in the photo is Andrea Sicignano, an American student who was assaulted and raped in Madrid in 2018. Sicignano posted the photo on her Facebook page and Spanish news outlet El Pais published a story about the incident. On June 12, 2020, Sicignano took to Facebook and said her photo is being misused to spread misinformation about Floyd. 'There has been a photo of me circulating around on the internet since yesterday. The photo was taken of me in a hospital bed in Spain after being violently beaten and raped by a stranger,' Sicignano wrote in the post. 'I posted my story over a year ago to use my voice to spread awareness and encourage other women to speak out about the injustices they've faced. Today my photo is being used as political propaganda/click bait to make people believe that George Floyd deserved to die. I am disgusted and humiliated, not for myself, but for my country.' Meanwhile, some of the assertions made about the details of the robbery are not accurate. Floyd was arrested in 2007 for his involvement in an armed home robbery and was sentenced to five years in prison, but court records do not indicate that Henriquez was pregnant at the time of the incident, or that Floyd threatened to kill her baby. According to the police's probable cause report, Henriquez, another woman and a toddler were home at the time of the incident and Floyd was one of multiple men who forced their way into the home, during which he threatened her with a gun. She was injured during the home invasion, but the report says her injuries were inflicted by another man, not Floyd.
|
Our ruling An Instagram post claims an image of a woman with bruises on her face is Aracely Henriquez, the victim of an armed home robbery that Floyd was involved in. But the image isn't of Henriquez. It shows an American student who was assaulted in Madrid in 2018 . Floyd served five years in prison for the armed robbery, but there is no evidence that Henriquez was pregnant at the time, and her injuries were inflicted by another man. We rate this False.
|
[] |
Says a photo shows Ilhan Omar without a head scarf.
|
Contradiction
|
A couple of weeks after U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass, announced in January that she had alopecia, a meanspirited image appeared on Facebook purporting to show another Democratic congresswoman without hair. 'Ilhan Omar hates this picture and she hates when people share it,' reads the text above two images of Omar, one in which she's wearing her usual head scarf and another in which she appears to have two small tufts of hair without it. 'Let's piss her off.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Jeremy Slevin, a spokesman for Omar, told us the image that makes Omar appear as if she were photographed without a headscarf isn't authentic. Rather, it seems the image was altered using this photo of a man wanted for a parole violation in South Wales. His distinctive hairline was mocked online after police posted his mugshot on Facebook. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire!
|
We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Says students have to repeat the same grade next year.
|
Contradiction
|
As school districts around the country have closed their doors to help combat the spread of COVID-19, tens of millions of children have been thrust into virtual classrooms, posing challenges and questions for parents, students and educators. As of March 30, seven states have extended school closures through the rest of the academic year. But that doesn't mean that students will have to repeat their current grade next year, as recent Facebook posts claim. Headlines being shared on the social media platform range from 'All Pennsylvania kids to repeat their current grade' to 'NC governor will require students to repeat their current grade' to 'Students might have to repeat a grade according to President Trump.' These and other, similar posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The links in these posts lead to similar pages: sites that say you got pranked. Amid fear and uncertainty caused by the coronavirus pandemic, that punchline is lost online as people worry that their 'babies can't graduate kindergarten.' The pandemic has, of course, disrupted education. A recent story in the Atlantic says 'it's not clear what will happen' if school closures last several months or even a year. In the case of an extended closure, 'some students might have to repeat grades when school recommenced, resulting in entire regional cohorts of students who would be older than their classmates nationally for the rest of their lives,' the story says. In Florida, according to a story in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, parents and educators can work together to decide whether a student should repeat a grade if parents are worried about their child missing so much school this year. But there have been no blanket directives on a state or federal level that we could find requiring kids to repeat their current grade. We rate these Facebook posts Pants on Fire.
|
We rate these Facebook posts Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
Says students have to repeat the same grade next year.
|
Contradiction
|
As school districts around the country have closed their doors to help combat the spread of COVID-19, tens of millions of children have been thrust into virtual classrooms, posing challenges and questions for parents, students and educators. As of March 30, seven states have extended school closures through the rest of the academic year. But that doesn't mean that students will have to repeat their current grade next year, as recent Facebook posts claim. Headlines being shared on the social media platform range from 'All Pennsylvania kids to repeat their current grade' to 'NC governor will require students to repeat their current grade' to 'Students might have to repeat a grade according to President Trump.' These and other, similar posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The links in these posts lead to similar pages: sites that say you got pranked. Amid fear and uncertainty caused by the coronavirus pandemic, that punchline is lost online as people worry that their 'babies can't graduate kindergarten.' The pandemic has, of course, disrupted education. A recent story in the Atlantic says 'it's not clear what will happen' if school closures last several months or even a year. In the case of an extended closure, 'some students might have to repeat grades when school recommenced, resulting in entire regional cohorts of students who would be older than their classmates nationally for the rest of their lives,' the story says. In Florida, according to a story in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, parents and educators can work together to decide whether a student should repeat a grade if parents are worried about their child missing so much school this year. But there have been no blanket directives on a state or federal level that we could find requiring kids to repeat their current grade. We rate these Facebook posts Pants on Fire.
|
We rate these Facebook posts Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
'Bill Gates fights to keep vaccine ingredients secret.
|
Contradiction
|
Wielding a clip from a recent interview that Microsoft co-founder and vaccine advocate Bill Gates gave to the British news channel Sky News, a video circulating on Facebook wrongly claims that Gates is fighting 'to keep vaccine ingredients secret.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In the interview, which Sky News posted on YouTube on April 25, the reporter asked Gates if it would be helpful for intellectual property law to change so that companies that developed COVID-19 vaccines - such as Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson - could share their 'recipe for these vaccines.' Gates said no. Asked why not, Gates downplayed the role of intellectual property concerns in restricting vaccine supplies, and pointed to the importance of safe manufacturing. 'There are only so many vaccine factories in the world, and people are very serious about the safety of vaccines, and so moving something that had never been done, moving a vaccine from, say, a J&J factory into a factory in India, that - it's novel. It's only because of our grants and our expertise that can happen at all,' he said. 'The thing that's holding things back in this case is not intellectual property. It's not like there's some idle vaccine factory with regulatory approval that makes magically safe vaccines,' he added. 'You've got to do the trials on these things, and every manufacturing process has to be looked at in a very careful way. There's all sorts of issues around the intellectual property having to do with medicines, but not in terms of how quickly we've been able to ramp up the volume here.' More than 80 developing countries have called for a temporary waiver of the World Trade Organization's intellectual property rules to speed COVID-19 vaccine production and distribution by allowing generic or other drug manufacturers to make more vaccines. Some public health officials have said vaccine makers should freely share their technology and data to maximize production, and 10 U.S. senators have urged President Joe Biden to back the effort. Opponents of such a waiver argue it could set a precedent that lets scientists around the world copy American and European research before patents expire. Gates, among others, has noted that companies making COVID-19 vaccines are already trying to make them more widely available - by licensing their technology to other manufacturers, for example. But defending intellectual property rights does not mean that Gates is advocating for keeping the ingredients in COVID-19 vaccines secret, as the Facebook post claims. That information is already available. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides links for information about the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines on its website. Each overview and safety page for the vaccines includes a link to the 'full list of ingredients.' What are the ingredients in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine? They include a genetic messenger molecule called mRNA, lipids, potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride (salt), dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose (sugar). We rate this post False.
|
We rate this post False.
|
[] |
'New data shows that death is proportional to dose' for COVID-19.
|
Contradiction
|
As variants of the coronavirus continue to take more lives in the United States - by and large, among the unvaccinated - an Instagram post blames the increased deaths on COVID-19 vaccines. 'New data shows that death is proportional to dose,' the post states. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Research shows the unvaccinated are far more likely to die from COVID-19, and that there is no clear evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have caused any deaths in the U.S. The claim The post includes a chart that purports to show the 'relative fatality rate' rising as second doses of the two-dose Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are given. The user's source for the claim is an article on Medium that includes a slightly different version of the chart. The author of that article indicates his expertise is in 'cryptocurrency, quantitative trading and trading technology.' He says in the article that the chart is based on his analysis of data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. That analysis is flawed, in that VAERS data cannot be used to conclude that a vaccine caused a death. Unvaccinated 11 times more likely to die COVID-19 has killed more than 700,000 people in the U.S. The vaccines authorized in the U.S. - Moderna and Pfizer, along with the single-dose Johnson & Johnson - have been shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of severe illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19. A minuscule percentage of vaccinated people have died from COVID-19. As of Sept. 27, 2021, more than 183 million people in the United States had been fully vaccinated and there were 5,226 breakthrough infections in which the person died, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That comes out to 0.0028%. Of those, 86% were people over age 65. And 17% were people who didn't have COVID-19 symptoms or whose death was not COVID-related. (For example, someone who was hospitalized for injuries following an auto accident and tested positive for COVID upon hospital admission.) The CDC reported on Sept. 10 that, based on a study of more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases in 13 states from April through mid-July, unvaccinated people were 11 times more likely to die than vaccinated people. No evidence vaccines have caused death There is no clear evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have caused any deaths in the U.S. Researchers are still evaluating whether there is a connection between the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and rare types of blood clots that have led to deaths, but such cases are few. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires health care providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, jointly run by the CDC and the FDA, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. From Dec. 14, 2020, through Sept. 27, 2021, VAERS received 8,164 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. But reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. Anyone can submit a report of an adverse event but the reports themselves are not verified. Incomplete VAERS data is often used in conjunction with false claims about vaccine safety. In a part of the CDC website that addresses the topic of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines, the CDC notes that 'a review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.'
|
Our ruling An Instagram post states: 'New data shows that death is proportional to dose' for COVID-19. Research shows the unvaccinated are far more likely to die from COVID-19, and that there is no clear evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have caused any deaths in the U.S. We rate the post False.
|
[
"109854-proof-10-0488b21065265f7cb2128a46d74a1aa7.jpg"
] |
'New data shows that death is proportional to dose' for COVID-19.
|
Contradiction
|
As variants of the coronavirus continue to take more lives in the United States - by and large, among the unvaccinated - an Instagram post blames the increased deaths on COVID-19 vaccines. 'New data shows that death is proportional to dose,' the post states. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Research shows the unvaccinated are far more likely to die from COVID-19, and that there is no clear evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have caused any deaths in the U.S. The claim The post includes a chart that purports to show the 'relative fatality rate' rising as second doses of the two-dose Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are given. The user's source for the claim is an article on Medium that includes a slightly different version of the chart. The author of that article indicates his expertise is in 'cryptocurrency, quantitative trading and trading technology.' He says in the article that the chart is based on his analysis of data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. That analysis is flawed, in that VAERS data cannot be used to conclude that a vaccine caused a death. Unvaccinated 11 times more likely to die COVID-19 has killed more than 700,000 people in the U.S. The vaccines authorized in the U.S. - Moderna and Pfizer, along with the single-dose Johnson & Johnson - have been shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of severe illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19. A minuscule percentage of vaccinated people have died from COVID-19. As of Sept. 27, 2021, more than 183 million people in the United States had been fully vaccinated and there were 5,226 breakthrough infections in which the person died, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That comes out to 0.0028%. Of those, 86% were people over age 65. And 17% were people who didn't have COVID-19 symptoms or whose death was not COVID-related. (For example, someone who was hospitalized for injuries following an auto accident and tested positive for COVID upon hospital admission.) The CDC reported on Sept. 10 that, based on a study of more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases in 13 states from April through mid-July, unvaccinated people were 11 times more likely to die than vaccinated people. No evidence vaccines have caused death There is no clear evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have caused any deaths in the U.S. Researchers are still evaluating whether there is a connection between the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and rare types of blood clots that have led to deaths, but such cases are few. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires health care providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, jointly run by the CDC and the FDA, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. From Dec. 14, 2020, through Sept. 27, 2021, VAERS received 8,164 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. But reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. Anyone can submit a report of an adverse event but the reports themselves are not verified. Incomplete VAERS data is often used in conjunction with false claims about vaccine safety. In a part of the CDC website that addresses the topic of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines, the CDC notes that 'a review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.'
|
Our ruling An Instagram post states: 'New data shows that death is proportional to dose' for COVID-19. Research shows the unvaccinated are far more likely to die from COVID-19, and that there is no clear evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have caused any deaths in the U.S. We rate the post False.
|
[
"109854-proof-10-0488b21065265f7cb2128a46d74a1aa7.jpg"
] |
'While we are all sitting here debating, Wisconsin has kicked hundreds of thousands of people off of their voting rolls.
|
Contradiction
|
In the most recent Democratic presidential debate, U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said she didn't want to keep rehashing the past. Instead, she said, she's focused on the way forward. Klobuchar then went on to outline a series of issues she believes demand attention. One of them was voting rights, and she used Wisconsin to underscore her point. 'While we are all sitting here debating, Wisconsin has kicked hundreds of thousands of people off of their voting rolls,' she said Feb. 25, 2020 in South Carolina. Wisconsin's voter rolls have been front and center in recent months after the state Election Commission sent letters to 234,000 voters it believed may have moved, asking them to update their registrations if relevant. The plan was to remove them from the rolls in 2021. That prompted a lawsuit from a conservative law group contending those voters should be taken off the rolls now. The matter ultimately may go to the state Supreme Court. Klobuchar's campaign said she was referring to voter purges in 2017 and 2018 - not those at the center of the lawsuit. But that doesn't explain why she implied it was happening right then. (Note: Klobuchar dropped out of the presidential campaign March 2, 2020, after a sixth-place finish in South Carolina, as we were working on this fact-check. We decided to complete it, since removal of voters from the state's rolls is an ongoing issue.) Let's see where Klobuchar's claim lands. Changes to Wisconsin's voter rolls When asked for evidence for Klobuchar's claim, a staffer pointed to a 2018 report from the left-leaning Center for Media and Democracy that indicated nearly 700,000 voters had been removed from the rolls since 2016. This included 44,000 voters in Milwaukee alone. The decline stemmed from two separate actions in 2017 and 2018, according to Reid Magney, public information officer for the Wisconsin Elections Commission. To meet a requirement under state law, the commission in 2017 removed more than 351,000 voters who hadn't voted in four years and didn't respond to a mailed notice to continue their registrations. Over half of those voters didn't respond, and roughly 43% of the notices were returned as undeliverable. Some people had died or were deactivated for other reasons. Then, in 2018, the commission canceled the registrations of more than 300,000 voters after the agency's Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, identified voters who had become inactive or needed to update their registration. Once officials realized there were problems with accuracy of that list, they implemented a supplemental poll book to ensure anyone incorrectly removed could vote without reregistering. The commission later said it found few examples of voters who were removed inappropriately. So, the commission did deactivate hundreds of thousands of voters in 2017 and 2018. But by saying they were 'kicked off,' Klobuchar suggests the motive was voter suppression. Magney disputes that. In any case, Wisconsin has same-day registration, so removal from the rolls does not prevent people from voting, as it might in some states if done too close to election day. The latest election saga There is another problem with Klobuchar's statement: She said Wisconsin has purged voters 'while we are all sitting here debating.' That suggests the issue is immediate - not one from several years ago. As we noted, Wisconsin is currently in the throes of a controversy over its voter rolls. The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, representing three suburban Milwaukee men, filed a lawsuit arguing that 234,000 voters who may have moved and received notices in the mail should be removed from the rolls within 30 days if they don't respond. The commission had said it wouldn't suspend registrations until after April 2021. Critics of the lawsuit believe any voter purge would be an affront to the democratic process and could inadvertently affect voters who didn't even move. The case has drawn heightened attention because of Wisconsin's pivotal role in this year's presidential race. In December 2019, an Ozaukee County judge sided with the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty and ordered the election commission to remove those people from the voter rolls. He found the commission and its Democratic members in contempt of court on Jan. 13, 2020 for failing to adhere to his ruling. But one day later, an appeals court ordered voters to be kept on the rolls while it considered whether people should be removed. The court officially struck down the Ozaukee County ruling on Feb. 28, 2020. That means the targeted voters won't be kicked off any time soon.
|
Our ruling Klobuchar said during the debate in South Carolina that, 'While we are all sitting here debating, Wisconsin has kicked hundreds of thousands of people off of their voting rolls.' Her campaign said she was referring to purges in 2017 and 2018, which did result in hundreds of thousands of voters being removed from the rolls. But her statement implied that was underway during the debate, which is not the case. Our definition of Mostly False is 'The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.' That fits here.
|
[
"109868-proof-24-968d54eceab706be05c35937de3f6c4d.jpg"
] |
'While we are all sitting here debating, Wisconsin has kicked hundreds of thousands of people off of their voting rolls.
|
Contradiction
|
In the most recent Democratic presidential debate, U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said she didn't want to keep rehashing the past. Instead, she said, she's focused on the way forward. Klobuchar then went on to outline a series of issues she believes demand attention. One of them was voting rights, and she used Wisconsin to underscore her point. 'While we are all sitting here debating, Wisconsin has kicked hundreds of thousands of people off of their voting rolls,' she said Feb. 25, 2020 in South Carolina. Wisconsin's voter rolls have been front and center in recent months after the state Election Commission sent letters to 234,000 voters it believed may have moved, asking them to update their registrations if relevant. The plan was to remove them from the rolls in 2021. That prompted a lawsuit from a conservative law group contending those voters should be taken off the rolls now. The matter ultimately may go to the state Supreme Court. Klobuchar's campaign said she was referring to voter purges in 2017 and 2018 - not those at the center of the lawsuit. But that doesn't explain why she implied it was happening right then. (Note: Klobuchar dropped out of the presidential campaign March 2, 2020, after a sixth-place finish in South Carolina, as we were working on this fact-check. We decided to complete it, since removal of voters from the state's rolls is an ongoing issue.) Let's see where Klobuchar's claim lands. Changes to Wisconsin's voter rolls When asked for evidence for Klobuchar's claim, a staffer pointed to a 2018 report from the left-leaning Center for Media and Democracy that indicated nearly 700,000 voters had been removed from the rolls since 2016. This included 44,000 voters in Milwaukee alone. The decline stemmed from two separate actions in 2017 and 2018, according to Reid Magney, public information officer for the Wisconsin Elections Commission. To meet a requirement under state law, the commission in 2017 removed more than 351,000 voters who hadn't voted in four years and didn't respond to a mailed notice to continue their registrations. Over half of those voters didn't respond, and roughly 43% of the notices were returned as undeliverable. Some people had died or were deactivated for other reasons. Then, in 2018, the commission canceled the registrations of more than 300,000 voters after the agency's Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, identified voters who had become inactive or needed to update their registration. Once officials realized there were problems with accuracy of that list, they implemented a supplemental poll book to ensure anyone incorrectly removed could vote without reregistering. The commission later said it found few examples of voters who were removed inappropriately. So, the commission did deactivate hundreds of thousands of voters in 2017 and 2018. But by saying they were 'kicked off,' Klobuchar suggests the motive was voter suppression. Magney disputes that. In any case, Wisconsin has same-day registration, so removal from the rolls does not prevent people from voting, as it might in some states if done too close to election day. The latest election saga There is another problem with Klobuchar's statement: She said Wisconsin has purged voters 'while we are all sitting here debating.' That suggests the issue is immediate - not one from several years ago. As we noted, Wisconsin is currently in the throes of a controversy over its voter rolls. The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, representing three suburban Milwaukee men, filed a lawsuit arguing that 234,000 voters who may have moved and received notices in the mail should be removed from the rolls within 30 days if they don't respond. The commission had said it wouldn't suspend registrations until after April 2021. Critics of the lawsuit believe any voter purge would be an affront to the democratic process and could inadvertently affect voters who didn't even move. The case has drawn heightened attention because of Wisconsin's pivotal role in this year's presidential race. In December 2019, an Ozaukee County judge sided with the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty and ordered the election commission to remove those people from the voter rolls. He found the commission and its Democratic members in contempt of court on Jan. 13, 2020 for failing to adhere to his ruling. But one day later, an appeals court ordered voters to be kept on the rolls while it considered whether people should be removed. The court officially struck down the Ozaukee County ruling on Feb. 28, 2020. That means the targeted voters won't be kicked off any time soon.
|
Our ruling Klobuchar said during the debate in South Carolina that, 'While we are all sitting here debating, Wisconsin has kicked hundreds of thousands of people off of their voting rolls.' Her campaign said she was referring to purges in 2017 and 2018, which did result in hundreds of thousands of voters being removed from the rolls. But her statement implied that was underway during the debate, which is not the case. Our definition of Mostly False is 'The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.' That fits here.
|
[
"109868-proof-24-968d54eceab706be05c35937de3f6c4d.jpg"
] |
'While we are all sitting here debating, Wisconsin has kicked hundreds of thousands of people off of their voting rolls.
|
Contradiction
|
In the most recent Democratic presidential debate, U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said she didn't want to keep rehashing the past. Instead, she said, she's focused on the way forward. Klobuchar then went on to outline a series of issues she believes demand attention. One of them was voting rights, and she used Wisconsin to underscore her point. 'While we are all sitting here debating, Wisconsin has kicked hundreds of thousands of people off of their voting rolls,' she said Feb. 25, 2020 in South Carolina. Wisconsin's voter rolls have been front and center in recent months after the state Election Commission sent letters to 234,000 voters it believed may have moved, asking them to update their registrations if relevant. The plan was to remove them from the rolls in 2021. That prompted a lawsuit from a conservative law group contending those voters should be taken off the rolls now. The matter ultimately may go to the state Supreme Court. Klobuchar's campaign said she was referring to voter purges in 2017 and 2018 - not those at the center of the lawsuit. But that doesn't explain why she implied it was happening right then. (Note: Klobuchar dropped out of the presidential campaign March 2, 2020, after a sixth-place finish in South Carolina, as we were working on this fact-check. We decided to complete it, since removal of voters from the state's rolls is an ongoing issue.) Let's see where Klobuchar's claim lands. Changes to Wisconsin's voter rolls When asked for evidence for Klobuchar's claim, a staffer pointed to a 2018 report from the left-leaning Center for Media and Democracy that indicated nearly 700,000 voters had been removed from the rolls since 2016. This included 44,000 voters in Milwaukee alone. The decline stemmed from two separate actions in 2017 and 2018, according to Reid Magney, public information officer for the Wisconsin Elections Commission. To meet a requirement under state law, the commission in 2017 removed more than 351,000 voters who hadn't voted in four years and didn't respond to a mailed notice to continue their registrations. Over half of those voters didn't respond, and roughly 43% of the notices were returned as undeliverable. Some people had died or were deactivated for other reasons. Then, in 2018, the commission canceled the registrations of more than 300,000 voters after the agency's Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, identified voters who had become inactive or needed to update their registration. Once officials realized there were problems with accuracy of that list, they implemented a supplemental poll book to ensure anyone incorrectly removed could vote without reregistering. The commission later said it found few examples of voters who were removed inappropriately. So, the commission did deactivate hundreds of thousands of voters in 2017 and 2018. But by saying they were 'kicked off,' Klobuchar suggests the motive was voter suppression. Magney disputes that. In any case, Wisconsin has same-day registration, so removal from the rolls does not prevent people from voting, as it might in some states if done too close to election day. The latest election saga There is another problem with Klobuchar's statement: She said Wisconsin has purged voters 'while we are all sitting here debating.' That suggests the issue is immediate - not one from several years ago. As we noted, Wisconsin is currently in the throes of a controversy over its voter rolls. The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, representing three suburban Milwaukee men, filed a lawsuit arguing that 234,000 voters who may have moved and received notices in the mail should be removed from the rolls within 30 days if they don't respond. The commission had said it wouldn't suspend registrations until after April 2021. Critics of the lawsuit believe any voter purge would be an affront to the democratic process and could inadvertently affect voters who didn't even move. The case has drawn heightened attention because of Wisconsin's pivotal role in this year's presidential race. In December 2019, an Ozaukee County judge sided with the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty and ordered the election commission to remove those people from the voter rolls. He found the commission and its Democratic members in contempt of court on Jan. 13, 2020 for failing to adhere to his ruling. But one day later, an appeals court ordered voters to be kept on the rolls while it considered whether people should be removed. The court officially struck down the Ozaukee County ruling on Feb. 28, 2020. That means the targeted voters won't be kicked off any time soon.
|
Our ruling Klobuchar said during the debate in South Carolina that, 'While we are all sitting here debating, Wisconsin has kicked hundreds of thousands of people off of their voting rolls.' Her campaign said she was referring to purges in 2017 and 2018, which did result in hundreds of thousands of voters being removed from the rolls. But her statement implied that was underway during the debate, which is not the case. Our definition of Mostly False is 'The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.' That fits here.
|
[
"109868-proof-24-968d54eceab706be05c35937de3f6c4d.jpg"
] |
HR 1 'automatically registers every welfare recipient to vote.
|
Contradiction
|
Former President Donald Trump said that Democrats are racing to pass a bill that would destroy the integrity of elections and automatically register poor people to vote. In a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Trump reeled off multiple objections to H.R. 1, including that it 'automatically registers every welfare recipient to vote.' Trump's statement is misleading. The Democrats' bill to expand voting rights would require multiple government agencies to help eligible people register to vote when they apply for assistance, but it doesn't single out applicants for programs associated with welfare. And Trump omits that public assistance agencies already play a role in helping people register to vote. H.R. 1 would expand that effort. Public assistance agencies already give applicants voter registration information Known as the For the People Act, the 791-page H.R. 1 combines proposals for voter registration, absentee voting, in-person voting, campaign finance and ethics. We contacted a spokesperson for Trump to ask which section of H.R. 1 he was referring to and did not get a response. We also don't know how Trump is defining 'welfare' - an imprecise term that could refer to any number of public assistance programs. We found no line in the legislation that calls for registering all 'welfare recipients' to vote. But Trump was likely referring to the automatic voter registration section that applies to many people who seek government services. 'The goal of H.R. 1 is the full registration of eligible Americans,' said Matthew Weil, an elections expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center. The 1993 National Voter Registration Act (often called 'Motor Voter') requires most states to offer voter registration at their motor-vehicle departments. States must also offer voter registration at offices that provide public assistance or services to people with disabilities and military recruitment offices. What is counted as public assistance? It's a long list of federal programs including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps); the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; Medicaid; and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. If states have their own public assistance programs, those are included, too. 'Given the language found in NVRA, it's safe to say that a number of state public service agencies are already involved with helping people register to vote,' Anthony Marcum, a resident fellow at the R Street Institute, a right-of-center organization that opposes H.R. 1 due to concerns about free speech and state rights. 'Just not as broadly - or automatically - as H.R. 1 envisions.' H.R. 1 expands the role of government agencies in voter registration Under the 1993 law, public assistance applicants essentially 'opt in' by choosing to register to vote. Under H.R. 1, applicants for services would have to 'opt out' if they don't want to register. H.R. 1 doesn't automatically register everybody to vote who applies for public assistance, said Sarah Brannon, a voting rights attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. If state or federal agencies determined that they had enough information about an applicant to register to vote, they would forward that information electronically to an election official. If the agency lacks certain necessary information, such as citizenship verification, then the applicant would be directed to a voter registration form. Either way, it's up to the elections official to determine whether the applicant is eligible to register to vote. 'It is just an automatic process to share the information so election officials decide who is or is not eligible,' Brannon said. The legislation also applies to applicants who previously sought public assistance. If a state agency has an applicant's information needed to register to vote - including proof of citizenship, age and address - H.R. 1 would require the agency to forward that information to election officials. H.R. 1 goes further than existing law by including more government offices that must participate including federal agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and state agencies responsible for regulating firearms - putting eligible registered firearm owners and veterans on the list of those who can choose to opt out of the voter registration process as well. If the legislation passes, would every 'welfare recipient' be registered to vote as Trump said? That's unlikely. Some public assistance applicants may opt out of voter registration because they are not interested. And applicants for public assistance still have to meet the eligibility criteria - including citizenship - to complete the registration process. H.R. 1 'automatically registers people for whom there is citizenship information,' said Wendy Weiser, an expert on voting rights at the liberal Brennan Center for Justice at NYU school of law. 'Automatic voter registration does not substitute for eligibility checks; it substitutes the first part of the process: the application. Your application will be transmitted - you don't have to take additional steps' Experts told us that if H.R. 1 were to become law, they would expect some increase in the number of public assistance applicants who register to vote. But they said they couldn't predict how many more will register that way. Here's what we do know: Under current law, adults rarely fill out voter registration forms when they apply for public assistance. State motor-vehicle departments are the most common source of voter registrations, according to the Election Assistance Commission - and would likely remain so. Only about 2% of registrations came from public assistance offices, according to data about the 2016 and 2018 elections. Automatic voter registration is not a new idea, nor one exclusively pushed by Democrats. The Campaign Legal Center, a group that supports H.R. 1, found that automatic registration has been implemented in more than a dozen states, including Republican-led and battleground states. In these states, the DMV is the most common agency involved in automatic voter registration, though a few states use health or social service agencies, too.
|
Our ruling Trump said H.R. 1 'automatically registers every welfare recipient to vote.' H.R. 1 includes an automatic voter registration provision under which government agencies that provide public assistance would pass along to election officials information about people who are eligible to vote as well as any other relevant information including citizenship status. But Trump's statement creates a misleading impression that people on welfare will have a special path to voter registration, regardless of eligibility. Under the bill, applicants could opt out, and election officials will still review applications for eligibility requirements before moving them to the voter rolls. That part of the bill isn't exclusively for people on public assistance. It would apply to veterans and gun owners, too. We rate this statement Mostly False. RELATED: Yes, the ACLU has criticized HR 1. Here's why RELATED: Group makes bogus attack on HR 1 over congressional salaries RELATED: Fact-checking misleading attacks on HR 1, Democrats' voting rights bill
|
[
"109897-proof-41-3d661b4f9292a848731646768ea7a4e0.jpg"
] |
HR 1 'automatically registers every welfare recipient to vote.
|
Contradiction
|
Former President Donald Trump said that Democrats are racing to pass a bill that would destroy the integrity of elections and automatically register poor people to vote. In a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Trump reeled off multiple objections to H.R. 1, including that it 'automatically registers every welfare recipient to vote.' Trump's statement is misleading. The Democrats' bill to expand voting rights would require multiple government agencies to help eligible people register to vote when they apply for assistance, but it doesn't single out applicants for programs associated with welfare. And Trump omits that public assistance agencies already play a role in helping people register to vote. H.R. 1 would expand that effort. Public assistance agencies already give applicants voter registration information Known as the For the People Act, the 791-page H.R. 1 combines proposals for voter registration, absentee voting, in-person voting, campaign finance and ethics. We contacted a spokesperson for Trump to ask which section of H.R. 1 he was referring to and did not get a response. We also don't know how Trump is defining 'welfare' - an imprecise term that could refer to any number of public assistance programs. We found no line in the legislation that calls for registering all 'welfare recipients' to vote. But Trump was likely referring to the automatic voter registration section that applies to many people who seek government services. 'The goal of H.R. 1 is the full registration of eligible Americans,' said Matthew Weil, an elections expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center. The 1993 National Voter Registration Act (often called 'Motor Voter') requires most states to offer voter registration at their motor-vehicle departments. States must also offer voter registration at offices that provide public assistance or services to people with disabilities and military recruitment offices. What is counted as public assistance? It's a long list of federal programs including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps); the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; Medicaid; and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. If states have their own public assistance programs, those are included, too. 'Given the language found in NVRA, it's safe to say that a number of state public service agencies are already involved with helping people register to vote,' Anthony Marcum, a resident fellow at the R Street Institute, a right-of-center organization that opposes H.R. 1 due to concerns about free speech and state rights. 'Just not as broadly - or automatically - as H.R. 1 envisions.' H.R. 1 expands the role of government agencies in voter registration Under the 1993 law, public assistance applicants essentially 'opt in' by choosing to register to vote. Under H.R. 1, applicants for services would have to 'opt out' if they don't want to register. H.R. 1 doesn't automatically register everybody to vote who applies for public assistance, said Sarah Brannon, a voting rights attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. If state or federal agencies determined that they had enough information about an applicant to register to vote, they would forward that information electronically to an election official. If the agency lacks certain necessary information, such as citizenship verification, then the applicant would be directed to a voter registration form. Either way, it's up to the elections official to determine whether the applicant is eligible to register to vote. 'It is just an automatic process to share the information so election officials decide who is or is not eligible,' Brannon said. The legislation also applies to applicants who previously sought public assistance. If a state agency has an applicant's information needed to register to vote - including proof of citizenship, age and address - H.R. 1 would require the agency to forward that information to election officials. H.R. 1 goes further than existing law by including more government offices that must participate including federal agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and state agencies responsible for regulating firearms - putting eligible registered firearm owners and veterans on the list of those who can choose to opt out of the voter registration process as well. If the legislation passes, would every 'welfare recipient' be registered to vote as Trump said? That's unlikely. Some public assistance applicants may opt out of voter registration because they are not interested. And applicants for public assistance still have to meet the eligibility criteria - including citizenship - to complete the registration process. H.R. 1 'automatically registers people for whom there is citizenship information,' said Wendy Weiser, an expert on voting rights at the liberal Brennan Center for Justice at NYU school of law. 'Automatic voter registration does not substitute for eligibility checks; it substitutes the first part of the process: the application. Your application will be transmitted - you don't have to take additional steps' Experts told us that if H.R. 1 were to become law, they would expect some increase in the number of public assistance applicants who register to vote. But they said they couldn't predict how many more will register that way. Here's what we do know: Under current law, adults rarely fill out voter registration forms when they apply for public assistance. State motor-vehicle departments are the most common source of voter registrations, according to the Election Assistance Commission - and would likely remain so. Only about 2% of registrations came from public assistance offices, according to data about the 2016 and 2018 elections. Automatic voter registration is not a new idea, nor one exclusively pushed by Democrats. The Campaign Legal Center, a group that supports H.R. 1, found that automatic registration has been implemented in more than a dozen states, including Republican-led and battleground states. In these states, the DMV is the most common agency involved in automatic voter registration, though a few states use health or social service agencies, too.
|
Our ruling Trump said H.R. 1 'automatically registers every welfare recipient to vote.' H.R. 1 includes an automatic voter registration provision under which government agencies that provide public assistance would pass along to election officials information about people who are eligible to vote as well as any other relevant information including citizenship status. But Trump's statement creates a misleading impression that people on welfare will have a special path to voter registration, regardless of eligibility. Under the bill, applicants could opt out, and election officials will still review applications for eligibility requirements before moving them to the voter rolls. That part of the bill isn't exclusively for people on public assistance. It would apply to veterans and gun owners, too. We rate this statement Mostly False. RELATED: Yes, the ACLU has criticized HR 1. Here's why RELATED: Group makes bogus attack on HR 1 over congressional salaries RELATED: Fact-checking misleading attacks on HR 1, Democrats' voting rights bill
|
[
"109897-proof-41-3d661b4f9292a848731646768ea7a4e0.jpg"
] |
HR 1 'automatically registers every welfare recipient to vote.
|
Contradiction
|
Former President Donald Trump said that Democrats are racing to pass a bill that would destroy the integrity of elections and automatically register poor people to vote. In a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Trump reeled off multiple objections to H.R. 1, including that it 'automatically registers every welfare recipient to vote.' Trump's statement is misleading. The Democrats' bill to expand voting rights would require multiple government agencies to help eligible people register to vote when they apply for assistance, but it doesn't single out applicants for programs associated with welfare. And Trump omits that public assistance agencies already play a role in helping people register to vote. H.R. 1 would expand that effort. Public assistance agencies already give applicants voter registration information Known as the For the People Act, the 791-page H.R. 1 combines proposals for voter registration, absentee voting, in-person voting, campaign finance and ethics. We contacted a spokesperson for Trump to ask which section of H.R. 1 he was referring to and did not get a response. We also don't know how Trump is defining 'welfare' - an imprecise term that could refer to any number of public assistance programs. We found no line in the legislation that calls for registering all 'welfare recipients' to vote. But Trump was likely referring to the automatic voter registration section that applies to many people who seek government services. 'The goal of H.R. 1 is the full registration of eligible Americans,' said Matthew Weil, an elections expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center. The 1993 National Voter Registration Act (often called 'Motor Voter') requires most states to offer voter registration at their motor-vehicle departments. States must also offer voter registration at offices that provide public assistance or services to people with disabilities and military recruitment offices. What is counted as public assistance? It's a long list of federal programs including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps); the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; Medicaid; and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. If states have their own public assistance programs, those are included, too. 'Given the language found in NVRA, it's safe to say that a number of state public service agencies are already involved with helping people register to vote,' Anthony Marcum, a resident fellow at the R Street Institute, a right-of-center organization that opposes H.R. 1 due to concerns about free speech and state rights. 'Just not as broadly - or automatically - as H.R. 1 envisions.' H.R. 1 expands the role of government agencies in voter registration Under the 1993 law, public assistance applicants essentially 'opt in' by choosing to register to vote. Under H.R. 1, applicants for services would have to 'opt out' if they don't want to register. H.R. 1 doesn't automatically register everybody to vote who applies for public assistance, said Sarah Brannon, a voting rights attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. If state or federal agencies determined that they had enough information about an applicant to register to vote, they would forward that information electronically to an election official. If the agency lacks certain necessary information, such as citizenship verification, then the applicant would be directed to a voter registration form. Either way, it's up to the elections official to determine whether the applicant is eligible to register to vote. 'It is just an automatic process to share the information so election officials decide who is or is not eligible,' Brannon said. The legislation also applies to applicants who previously sought public assistance. If a state agency has an applicant's information needed to register to vote - including proof of citizenship, age and address - H.R. 1 would require the agency to forward that information to election officials. H.R. 1 goes further than existing law by including more government offices that must participate including federal agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and state agencies responsible for regulating firearms - putting eligible registered firearm owners and veterans on the list of those who can choose to opt out of the voter registration process as well. If the legislation passes, would every 'welfare recipient' be registered to vote as Trump said? That's unlikely. Some public assistance applicants may opt out of voter registration because they are not interested. And applicants for public assistance still have to meet the eligibility criteria - including citizenship - to complete the registration process. H.R. 1 'automatically registers people for whom there is citizenship information,' said Wendy Weiser, an expert on voting rights at the liberal Brennan Center for Justice at NYU school of law. 'Automatic voter registration does not substitute for eligibility checks; it substitutes the first part of the process: the application. Your application will be transmitted - you don't have to take additional steps' Experts told us that if H.R. 1 were to become law, they would expect some increase in the number of public assistance applicants who register to vote. But they said they couldn't predict how many more will register that way. Here's what we do know: Under current law, adults rarely fill out voter registration forms when they apply for public assistance. State motor-vehicle departments are the most common source of voter registrations, according to the Election Assistance Commission - and would likely remain so. Only about 2% of registrations came from public assistance offices, according to data about the 2016 and 2018 elections. Automatic voter registration is not a new idea, nor one exclusively pushed by Democrats. The Campaign Legal Center, a group that supports H.R. 1, found that automatic registration has been implemented in more than a dozen states, including Republican-led and battleground states. In these states, the DMV is the most common agency involved in automatic voter registration, though a few states use health or social service agencies, too.
|
Our ruling Trump said H.R. 1 'automatically registers every welfare recipient to vote.' H.R. 1 includes an automatic voter registration provision under which government agencies that provide public assistance would pass along to election officials information about people who are eligible to vote as well as any other relevant information including citizenship status. But Trump's statement creates a misleading impression that people on welfare will have a special path to voter registration, regardless of eligibility. Under the bill, applicants could opt out, and election officials will still review applications for eligibility requirements before moving them to the voter rolls. That part of the bill isn't exclusively for people on public assistance. It would apply to veterans and gun owners, too. We rate this statement Mostly False. RELATED: Yes, the ACLU has criticized HR 1. Here's why RELATED: Group makes bogus attack on HR 1 over congressional salaries RELATED: Fact-checking misleading attacks on HR 1, Democrats' voting rights bill
|
[
"109897-proof-41-3d661b4f9292a848731646768ea7a4e0.jpg"
] |
'CA inmate pregnant after being forced to share prison with transgender 'woman.
|
Contradiction
|
An image of what looks like a pregnant inmate in an orange jumpsuit is being shared on social media with this description: 'CA inmate pregnant after being forced to share prison with transgender 'woman.'' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation about the post and asked if a woman was impregnated in custody, and if so, if she was forced to with this person, or assaulted. Terry Thornton, the agency's deputy press secretary, told us 'these claims are not accurate.' 'There are pregnant incarcerated women in CDCR custody,' Thornton said, 'however, they were pregnant when they were admitted to state prison.' On Jan. 1, the Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act - California Senate Bill 132 - took effect. The legislation allows incarcerated transgeder, non-binary and intersex people to request to be housed in a men's prison or a women's prison that's 'consistent with their gender identity,' according to an explainer on the corrections and rehabilitation department's website. As of Aug. 6, there were 1,274 people incarcerated in the California prison system who have identified themselves as transgender or have symptoms of gender dysphoria. 'Since transgender people may be singled out for violent attacks by other incarcerated people and are at a higher risk for victimization, CDCR must make every effort to protect this vulnerable population,' the department says on its website. 'Housing transgender people according to their gender identity, when safe to do so, increases safety in prisons, upholds CDCR's duty to protect all incarcerated people and promotes successful rehabilitation.' In a series of 'frequently asked questions,' the department also addresses whether this policy could result in pregnancy or if there's a risk a cisgender man - someone whose self-identity corresponds with their birth sex - could claim to be a transgender woman in order to be housed with women. Sexual acts aren't allowed in California prisons and result in disciplinary action, according to the department. Housing placement is decided on a case-by-case basis using a screening tool and considering 'all case factors.' In April, the Los Angeles Times reported that there had been 261 requests for transfers since the legislation took effect and 21 gender-based housing requests had at that point been approved. One incarcerated woman told the paper that guards warned them 'men are coming' and to expect sexual violence. 'Although advocates and inmates say the transfers have been received well, several claim that misinformation spread by prison staffers is stirring up transphobia and that more must be done to educate inmates,' the story says. We rate this post False.
|
We rate this post False.
|
[] |
'No prominent Democrats have had the virus but the list of Republicans goes on and on.
|
Contradiction
|
As the world reacted to President Donald Trump's positive coronavirus test some people noticed a seemingly partisan disparity in who has contracted the virus. 'Does anyone else find it odd that no prominent Democrats have had the virus but the list of Republicans goes on and on?' said DeAnna Lorraine in an Oct. 2 tweet. Lorraine is a former Republican congressional candidate who ran to represent California's 12th Congressional District this year. She lost in the primary election on March 3. Lorraine's tweet has been shared thousands of times on Twitter and Facebook, where some posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Twitter) After Trump tweeted that he and first lady Melania Trump had tested positive for the coronavirus, several people the president came in contact with also got tested. Former Vice President Joe Biden and his runningmate, Sen. Kamala Harris, tested negative. But Lorraine's claim is wrong. Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have not contracted the coronavirus. But the same could also be said for Republican leaders. Meanwhile, several Democratic mayors and governors have contracted the virus, including Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam. NPR has been keeping tabs on specific members of Congress who have tested positive for the coronavirus or quarantined after being exposed to it. According to the list, three Republican senators and nine representatives have tested positive or were presumed to have the coronavirus since the pandemic began. That's more than the Democrats, who have had no senators and six representatives test positive for the virus. Polls suggest that Republicans are less likely than Democrats to view the coronavirus as a serious public health threat. Republican representatives have also been less inclined to wear face masks during meetings and hearings, and more likely to hold in-person rallies and events. Both go against what public health authorities have recommended for slowing the spread of the coronavirus. We reached out to Lorraine for more evidence or a comment. We haven't heard back. She's wrong that no prominent Democrats have contracted the coronavirus. We rate her post False.
|
She's wrong that no prominent Democrats have contracted the coronavirus. We rate her post False.
|
[
"109913-proof-20-03b8ac58569881412f64789669ab107a.jpg"
] |
'No prominent Democrats have had the virus but the list of Republicans goes on and on.
|
Contradiction
|
As the world reacted to President Donald Trump's positive coronavirus test some people noticed a seemingly partisan disparity in who has contracted the virus. 'Does anyone else find it odd that no prominent Democrats have had the virus but the list of Republicans goes on and on?' said DeAnna Lorraine in an Oct. 2 tweet. Lorraine is a former Republican congressional candidate who ran to represent California's 12th Congressional District this year. She lost in the primary election on March 3. Lorraine's tweet has been shared thousands of times on Twitter and Facebook, where some posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Twitter) After Trump tweeted that he and first lady Melania Trump had tested positive for the coronavirus, several people the president came in contact with also got tested. Former Vice President Joe Biden and his runningmate, Sen. Kamala Harris, tested negative. But Lorraine's claim is wrong. Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have not contracted the coronavirus. But the same could also be said for Republican leaders. Meanwhile, several Democratic mayors and governors have contracted the virus, including Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam. NPR has been keeping tabs on specific members of Congress who have tested positive for the coronavirus or quarantined after being exposed to it. According to the list, three Republican senators and nine representatives have tested positive or were presumed to have the coronavirus since the pandemic began. That's more than the Democrats, who have had no senators and six representatives test positive for the virus. Polls suggest that Republicans are less likely than Democrats to view the coronavirus as a serious public health threat. Republican representatives have also been less inclined to wear face masks during meetings and hearings, and more likely to hold in-person rallies and events. Both go against what public health authorities have recommended for slowing the spread of the coronavirus. We reached out to Lorraine for more evidence or a comment. We haven't heard back. She's wrong that no prominent Democrats have contracted the coronavirus. We rate her post False.
|
She's wrong that no prominent Democrats have contracted the coronavirus. We rate her post False.
|
[
"109913-proof-20-03b8ac58569881412f64789669ab107a.jpg"
] |
Says coronavirus is just 'the damn flu.
|
Contradiction
|
David A. Clarke, the outspoken former sheriff of Milwaukee County, says he is leaving Twitter. If that's true, he sure went out with a bang. Clarke put the nation's coronavirus response on blast with a barrage of tweets on March 15, 2020, some of which were later removed by Twitter. Among them: He urged people to 'go out into the streets' and demand that schools reopen and government stop exerting such 'control over our lives.' He said the coronavirus is 'an orchestrated attempt to destroy capitalism.' He insisted - without any evidence - that George Soros, a prominent backer of liberal causes, is 'somewhere involved in this.' Whew. There's plenty of potential Pants on Fire ratings to be had from the Stetson-wearing controversy-magnet, but we're going to focus on a fourth, since-deleted tweet. Here's the full text (minus a few choice words): 'I am tired of all this, 'We have to err on the side of caution' (expletive). We have to get back to reasonableness dammit. It's the damn flu. Stop being afraid and start being sensible. Wash your (expletive) hands! Stop buying toilet paper. Do you (expletive) hear me????' Clarke stepped down as sheriff in 2017 after 15 years as the county's top cop, saying he was leaving to take a high-ranking post in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security - a job that never materialized. In the time since, Clarke has also lost posts at a pro-President Trump super PAC and as a regular contributor on Fox News. Now he's using his free time to make the case everyone is being unreasonable because this is just 'the damn flu.' Let's break it down. How they're the same Coronavirus and the flu are both viruses, and experts say they have some shared characteristics: Risk factors - The groups of people at highest risk are similar, including the elderly. Spread - Both diseases spread from person to person through respiratory droplets in coughs and sneezes (though it's possible coronavirus lingers in the air longer after the sick person has left). Prevention - The expert advice is similar: wash your hands, don't touch your face, stay away from people who are sick and stay home if you are sick. Symptoms - Both cause fever, cough, body aches and fatigue, though coronavirus is more likely to cause shortness of breath. Treatment - Neither virus is treatable with antibiotics (those only work on bacterial infections). How they're different The diseases have some critical differences, most importantly the death rate and lack of a vaccine. Based on the current numbers, someone with COVID-19 - the disease caused by coronavirus - is 23 to 68 times more likely to die than someone who contracts the flu, based on the latest data from the World Health Organization, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccine - A flu vaccine is available and effective to prevent the flu, or at least reduce its severity. A coronavirus vaccine is not yet available, and likely won't be for at least a year. Treatment - There are antiviral medications that address flu symptoms and can even shorten the duration of the illness, but such medications are still being tested for coronavirus. Death rate - The fatality rate for this year's flu is estimated by the CDC at between 0.05% and 0.1% in the United States. The coronavirus fatality rate was estimated at 2.3% of those infected by China's CDC and 3.4% by the World Health Organization (though many expect that to fall to the 1-2% range once we know more about how many people have been infected). Infections - Coronavirus has, so far, infected far fewer people. There were about 3,500 confirmed cases of coronavirus in the U.S. when Clarke tweeted, compared to an estimated 36 million to 51 million flu illnesses this season. Knowledge and research - Scientists know much more about the flu, such as details on how it is transmitted, the range of symptoms and treatment. Such details on coronavirus remain a point of debate. All this to say, the CDC and other health officials have made it clear coronavirus presents a litany of risks the standard flu does not. The overwhelmed health care systems in first China, then Italy reinforced the severity of the disease and the breadth of its potential impact here. And the reaction of government alone - closing schools, bars, restaurants and more - makes it clear there is a stark difference between the two. Our rating Ranting against those who would 'err on the side of caution,' Clarke claimed coronavirus is just the 'damn flu.' There is indeed overlap in some basic areas - what symptoms it causes, how it is spread, who is most at risk, etc. But those pale in light of the stark differences. There is no vaccine for coronavirus. Treatment approaches are not as well established. And most critically, someone who contracts COVID-19 is at least 20 times more likely to die of the disease than someone with the flu, based on the best available data. The overall theme from Clarke's tweetstorm was that the coronavirus is no big deal - that the disease is just the same old flu virus with a heaping spoonful of government overreach. That flies in the face of lots of established science, as well as what nations like China and Italy have already experienced. We rate Clarke's claim Pants on Fire.
|
Our rating Ranting against those who would 'err on the side of caution,' Clarke claimed coronavirus is just the 'damn flu.' There is indeed overlap in some basic areas - what symptoms it causes, how it is spread, who is most at risk, etc. But those pale in light of the stark differences. There is no vaccine for coronavirus. Treatment approaches are not as well established. And most critically, someone who contracts COVID-19 is at least 20 times more likely to die of the disease than someone with the flu, based on the best available data. The overall theme from Clarke's tweetstorm was that the coronavirus is no big deal - that the disease is just the same old flu virus with a heaping spoonful of government overreach. That flies in the face of lots of established science, as well as what nations like China and Italy have already experienced. We rate Clarke's claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"109914-proof-27-1e3766c4cbb1a024bdffe16c4831caa9.jpg"
] |
Says coronavirus is just 'the damn flu.
|
Contradiction
|
David A. Clarke, the outspoken former sheriff of Milwaukee County, says he is leaving Twitter. If that's true, he sure went out with a bang. Clarke put the nation's coronavirus response on blast with a barrage of tweets on March 15, 2020, some of which were later removed by Twitter. Among them: He urged people to 'go out into the streets' and demand that schools reopen and government stop exerting such 'control over our lives.' He said the coronavirus is 'an orchestrated attempt to destroy capitalism.' He insisted - without any evidence - that George Soros, a prominent backer of liberal causes, is 'somewhere involved in this.' Whew. There's plenty of potential Pants on Fire ratings to be had from the Stetson-wearing controversy-magnet, but we're going to focus on a fourth, since-deleted tweet. Here's the full text (minus a few choice words): 'I am tired of all this, 'We have to err on the side of caution' (expletive). We have to get back to reasonableness dammit. It's the damn flu. Stop being afraid and start being sensible. Wash your (expletive) hands! Stop buying toilet paper. Do you (expletive) hear me????' Clarke stepped down as sheriff in 2017 after 15 years as the county's top cop, saying he was leaving to take a high-ranking post in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security - a job that never materialized. In the time since, Clarke has also lost posts at a pro-President Trump super PAC and as a regular contributor on Fox News. Now he's using his free time to make the case everyone is being unreasonable because this is just 'the damn flu.' Let's break it down. How they're the same Coronavirus and the flu are both viruses, and experts say they have some shared characteristics: Risk factors - The groups of people at highest risk are similar, including the elderly. Spread - Both diseases spread from person to person through respiratory droplets in coughs and sneezes (though it's possible coronavirus lingers in the air longer after the sick person has left). Prevention - The expert advice is similar: wash your hands, don't touch your face, stay away from people who are sick and stay home if you are sick. Symptoms - Both cause fever, cough, body aches and fatigue, though coronavirus is more likely to cause shortness of breath. Treatment - Neither virus is treatable with antibiotics (those only work on bacterial infections). How they're different The diseases have some critical differences, most importantly the death rate and lack of a vaccine. Based on the current numbers, someone with COVID-19 - the disease caused by coronavirus - is 23 to 68 times more likely to die than someone who contracts the flu, based on the latest data from the World Health Organization, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccine - A flu vaccine is available and effective to prevent the flu, or at least reduce its severity. A coronavirus vaccine is not yet available, and likely won't be for at least a year. Treatment - There are antiviral medications that address flu symptoms and can even shorten the duration of the illness, but such medications are still being tested for coronavirus. Death rate - The fatality rate for this year's flu is estimated by the CDC at between 0.05% and 0.1% in the United States. The coronavirus fatality rate was estimated at 2.3% of those infected by China's CDC and 3.4% by the World Health Organization (though many expect that to fall to the 1-2% range once we know more about how many people have been infected). Infections - Coronavirus has, so far, infected far fewer people. There were about 3,500 confirmed cases of coronavirus in the U.S. when Clarke tweeted, compared to an estimated 36 million to 51 million flu illnesses this season. Knowledge and research - Scientists know much more about the flu, such as details on how it is transmitted, the range of symptoms and treatment. Such details on coronavirus remain a point of debate. All this to say, the CDC and other health officials have made it clear coronavirus presents a litany of risks the standard flu does not. The overwhelmed health care systems in first China, then Italy reinforced the severity of the disease and the breadth of its potential impact here. And the reaction of government alone - closing schools, bars, restaurants and more - makes it clear there is a stark difference between the two. Our rating Ranting against those who would 'err on the side of caution,' Clarke claimed coronavirus is just the 'damn flu.' There is indeed overlap in some basic areas - what symptoms it causes, how it is spread, who is most at risk, etc. But those pale in light of the stark differences. There is no vaccine for coronavirus. Treatment approaches are not as well established. And most critically, someone who contracts COVID-19 is at least 20 times more likely to die of the disease than someone with the flu, based on the best available data. The overall theme from Clarke's tweetstorm was that the coronavirus is no big deal - that the disease is just the same old flu virus with a heaping spoonful of government overreach. That flies in the face of lots of established science, as well as what nations like China and Italy have already experienced. We rate Clarke's claim Pants on Fire.
|
Our rating Ranting against those who would 'err on the side of caution,' Clarke claimed coronavirus is just the 'damn flu.' There is indeed overlap in some basic areas - what symptoms it causes, how it is spread, who is most at risk, etc. But those pale in light of the stark differences. There is no vaccine for coronavirus. Treatment approaches are not as well established. And most critically, someone who contracts COVID-19 is at least 20 times more likely to die of the disease than someone with the flu, based on the best available data. The overall theme from Clarke's tweetstorm was that the coronavirus is no big deal - that the disease is just the same old flu virus with a heaping spoonful of government overreach. That flies in the face of lots of established science, as well as what nations like China and Italy have already experienced. We rate Clarke's claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"109914-proof-27-1e3766c4cbb1a024bdffe16c4831caa9.jpg"
] |
Says coronavirus is just 'the damn flu.
|
Contradiction
|
David A. Clarke, the outspoken former sheriff of Milwaukee County, says he is leaving Twitter. If that's true, he sure went out with a bang. Clarke put the nation's coronavirus response on blast with a barrage of tweets on March 15, 2020, some of which were later removed by Twitter. Among them: He urged people to 'go out into the streets' and demand that schools reopen and government stop exerting such 'control over our lives.' He said the coronavirus is 'an orchestrated attempt to destroy capitalism.' He insisted - without any evidence - that George Soros, a prominent backer of liberal causes, is 'somewhere involved in this.' Whew. There's plenty of potential Pants on Fire ratings to be had from the Stetson-wearing controversy-magnet, but we're going to focus on a fourth, since-deleted tweet. Here's the full text (minus a few choice words): 'I am tired of all this, 'We have to err on the side of caution' (expletive). We have to get back to reasonableness dammit. It's the damn flu. Stop being afraid and start being sensible. Wash your (expletive) hands! Stop buying toilet paper. Do you (expletive) hear me????' Clarke stepped down as sheriff in 2017 after 15 years as the county's top cop, saying he was leaving to take a high-ranking post in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security - a job that never materialized. In the time since, Clarke has also lost posts at a pro-President Trump super PAC and as a regular contributor on Fox News. Now he's using his free time to make the case everyone is being unreasonable because this is just 'the damn flu.' Let's break it down. How they're the same Coronavirus and the flu are both viruses, and experts say they have some shared characteristics: Risk factors - The groups of people at highest risk are similar, including the elderly. Spread - Both diseases spread from person to person through respiratory droplets in coughs and sneezes (though it's possible coronavirus lingers in the air longer after the sick person has left). Prevention - The expert advice is similar: wash your hands, don't touch your face, stay away from people who are sick and stay home if you are sick. Symptoms - Both cause fever, cough, body aches and fatigue, though coronavirus is more likely to cause shortness of breath. Treatment - Neither virus is treatable with antibiotics (those only work on bacterial infections). How they're different The diseases have some critical differences, most importantly the death rate and lack of a vaccine. Based on the current numbers, someone with COVID-19 - the disease caused by coronavirus - is 23 to 68 times more likely to die than someone who contracts the flu, based on the latest data from the World Health Organization, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccine - A flu vaccine is available and effective to prevent the flu, or at least reduce its severity. A coronavirus vaccine is not yet available, and likely won't be for at least a year. Treatment - There are antiviral medications that address flu symptoms and can even shorten the duration of the illness, but such medications are still being tested for coronavirus. Death rate - The fatality rate for this year's flu is estimated by the CDC at between 0.05% and 0.1% in the United States. The coronavirus fatality rate was estimated at 2.3% of those infected by China's CDC and 3.4% by the World Health Organization (though many expect that to fall to the 1-2% range once we know more about how many people have been infected). Infections - Coronavirus has, so far, infected far fewer people. There were about 3,500 confirmed cases of coronavirus in the U.S. when Clarke tweeted, compared to an estimated 36 million to 51 million flu illnesses this season. Knowledge and research - Scientists know much more about the flu, such as details on how it is transmitted, the range of symptoms and treatment. Such details on coronavirus remain a point of debate. All this to say, the CDC and other health officials have made it clear coronavirus presents a litany of risks the standard flu does not. The overwhelmed health care systems in first China, then Italy reinforced the severity of the disease and the breadth of its potential impact here. And the reaction of government alone - closing schools, bars, restaurants and more - makes it clear there is a stark difference between the two. Our rating Ranting against those who would 'err on the side of caution,' Clarke claimed coronavirus is just the 'damn flu.' There is indeed overlap in some basic areas - what symptoms it causes, how it is spread, who is most at risk, etc. But those pale in light of the stark differences. There is no vaccine for coronavirus. Treatment approaches are not as well established. And most critically, someone who contracts COVID-19 is at least 20 times more likely to die of the disease than someone with the flu, based on the best available data. The overall theme from Clarke's tweetstorm was that the coronavirus is no big deal - that the disease is just the same old flu virus with a heaping spoonful of government overreach. That flies in the face of lots of established science, as well as what nations like China and Italy have already experienced. We rate Clarke's claim Pants on Fire.
|
Our rating Ranting against those who would 'err on the side of caution,' Clarke claimed coronavirus is just the 'damn flu.' There is indeed overlap in some basic areas - what symptoms it causes, how it is spread, who is most at risk, etc. But those pale in light of the stark differences. There is no vaccine for coronavirus. Treatment approaches are not as well established. And most critically, someone who contracts COVID-19 is at least 20 times more likely to die of the disease than someone with the flu, based on the best available data. The overall theme from Clarke's tweetstorm was that the coronavirus is no big deal - that the disease is just the same old flu virus with a heaping spoonful of government overreach. That flies in the face of lots of established science, as well as what nations like China and Italy have already experienced. We rate Clarke's claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"109914-proof-27-1e3766c4cbb1a024bdffe16c4831caa9.jpg"
] |
Says Kansas City Chiefs CEO Clark Hunt said, 'You will stand, with your hand over your heart and with respect, when our country's national anthem is being played or you will no longer be a Kansas City Chief.
|
Contradiction
|
With the news that Kansas City Chiefs quarterback and Super Bowl MVP Patrick Mahomes signed the largest sports contract in history, an old Facebook post - shared more than half a million times - is again getting traction. It shows an image of what purports to be a statement made by Clark Hunt, the team's chief executive officer and chairman, during a meeting he called with his coaches, players and field staff in 2017. 'You are all simply paid performers on a stage and that field is my stage,' the statement says. 'You will stand, with your hand over your heart and with respect, when our country's national anthem is being played or you will no longer be a Kansas City Chief, a coach for the Kansas City Chiefs or have any association with the Chiefs organization. I will immediately fire you, no matter who you are!' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) According to the Kansas City Star, the statement attributed to Clark started circulating in 2016, the year that San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick began kneeling during the anthem to protest racist oppression. But Hunt told the paper that 'it was an internet hoax.' Here's what Hunt has actually said about anthem protests: 'It's not something where I've spoken specifically to the players or any specific player about it. But the entire team knows that our desire is for them to stand during the national anthem.' We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[
"109927-proof-09-15f7e90b6a596980555a8555ddde0082.jpg"
] |
'Joe Biden's great-grandfather Joseph J. Biden was a slave-owner and fought' for the Confederacy.
|
Contradiction
|
Did the vice president who served with America's first Black president descend from a Confederate soldier who enslaved people? That's the claim made by a viral image about Joe Biden, who served as vice president under Barack Obama (who himself has ancestors who enslaved people). The black-and-white image is included with a blog post shared widely on Facebook. Showing a man in what appears to be a military uniform and holding a rifle, it claims: 'Joe Biden's great-grandfather Joseph J. Biden (1828-1880) was a slave-owner and fought for the Confederate States of America.' The June 22 blog post itself says: 'Hey!! Cancel Culture! Joe Biden's great-grandfather was a Confederate soldier and owned slaves.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There was not a Joseph J. Biden among Joe Biden's grandfathers, great-grandfathers and great-great-grandfathers. And there isn't evidence to back either part of the claim. Biden and Obama Biden, the presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, was born into a working class family in Scranton, Pa., that later moved to Delaware, where he served as a U.S. senator. He served as vice president starting with Obama's first term in 2008. It was reported in 2007 that genealogists found that Obama, the American-born son of a white woman from Kansas and a Black man from Kenya, had a great-great-great-great grandfather and a great-great-great-great-great grandmother who each owned two slaves. We traced Biden's ancestry on his father's side, starting with his own father. Here's what we found. Father: Joseph Robinette Biden Sr. Joe Biden Sr. held a number of jobs, including in used car and real estate sales. He died in 2002. Grandfather: Joseph H. Biden Joseph H. Biden, an oil salesman, lived in Baltimore. He was born in 1893 - 28 years after the Civil War ended - and died in 1941, according to Smolenyak. Great-grandfather: George T. Biden George T. Biden lived in Baltimore County, Md., and worked as a produce dealer, according to a document from the 1910 Census. He was born around 1867, two years after the last of the enslaved people in the United States learned they were free, and died in 1933, according to genealogist Megan Smolenyak, who has written about the Biden family tree. Great-great-grandfather: Joseph H. Biden This Joseph H. Biden is from the Civil War period. A document from the 1870 Census shows that Joe Biden's great-great-grandfather had the same name as Joe Biden's grandfather. The document lists this Joseph H. Biden as a carpenter who lived in Baltimore County, Md. He was on a draft registration list for the Union Army, according to a document provided to PolitiFact by genealogist Megan Smolenyak, but she said it doesn't appear he served and there is no evidence he enslaved people. He died in 1895, she said. Other sources A State of Maryland slavery database lists no Bidens. People who were enslaved in Maryland were declared free in 1864. A National Park Service database of Civil War soldiers does not list Biden's great-great-grandfather as having served for either side. Kurt Luther, professor of computer science at Virginia Tech and leader of a team that runs the Civil War Photo Sleuth online tool, said the surname Biden does not appear in various Civil War soldier databases he examined. Smolenyak also said she found no Confederates in the Biden family. Luther said the image we're checking is of Richard Young Bennett, a Confederate soldier who served with Mississippi's 2nd Infantry during the Civil War. The fact-checkers Snopes and Lead Stories also found no evidence to back either the Confederacy or the slavery part of the claim.
|
Our ruling A blog post includes an image that says Biden's great-grandfather, identified as Joseph J. Biden, was a Confederate soldier who enslaved people. Biden's great-great-grandfather was Joseph H. Biden. We found no evidence to indicate he was in the Confederacy or enslaved people. We rate the post False.
|
[] |
California's shipping backlog is, in part, caused by a 'California Truck Ban which says all trucks must be 2011 or newer and a law called AB 5 which prohibits Owner Operators.
|
Contradiction
|
As hordes of ships wait to unload at California ports and elsewhere, some are shifting blame to the Golden State's regulations on the trucking industry. 'The NEWS says the California port situation is caused by a driver shortage,' one viral post on Facebook said. 'Not so fast: It is in part caused by a California Truck Ban, which says all trucks must be 2011 or newer, and a law called AB 5, which prohibits Owner Operators.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post is referring to real California policies. But while experts say these rules have likely had some impact on supply chain disruptions, this post overstates their role. Many factors have contributed to the shipping backlog, including a lack of warehouse space and equipment shortages. Most issues can be traced back to the COVID-19 pandemic, experts said, which resulted in factory closures and employee layoffs that crippled production worldwide. The delta variant of the virus that causes COVID-19 further shocked systems that were just starting to recover from the earliest phases of the pandemic. The post points to two separate California policies: a law called AB 5 that was passed in 2019 and aims to give independent contractors more employee rights, and the state's longstanding clean air regulations on heavy-duty vehicles. What is AB 5? Commonly referred to as the 'gig worker bill,' Assembly Bill 5 codified and expanded a 2018 California Supreme Court decision that set a strict new test for employers to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. It went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020. Under the measure, all workers are considered employees unless the hiring business demonstrates that the worker meets three conditions: They should be free to perform the work as they wish, or free from the control and direction of the hiring entity; in a different line of work from the company contracting with them; and operating their own business. The law is intended to require employers to treat more workers as employees entitled to rights and benefits like a guaranteed minimum wage, employee benefits, expense reimbursements, rest or meal breaks and overtime pay. Critics, however, say the measure makes it nearly impossible for truck drivers to be independent contractors because they inevitably work in the same line as the companies they contract with. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2019 that out of approximately 13,000 truckers who serve the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, just a few hundred are classified as employees. Most are considered 'owner operators' who often lease their rigs from trucking companies, drive under those companies' permits and rely on them for work. They are paid by the load and get an annual 1099 tax form, which some freelancers and independent contractors use to report income. But it's hard to quantify what role this law could be playing in California's shipping backlog. That's because the California Trucking Association quickly filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law, and the trucking industry remains under a temporary injunction exempting them from its confines. After a circuit court denied its appeal for a rehearing, the association petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its case. If the high court denies the petition, the injunction will be lifted immediately. At the time AB 5 passed, industry experts said that some owner-operators sought work elsewhere. Some fleets, too, chose to stop doing business with owner-operators in California. Danielle Inman, a spokesperson for the National Retail Foundation, which has lobbied for California to overturn AB 5, told PolitiFact that the state's regulations on trucking impact the availability of drivers and trucks, but many other issues are also disrupting the movement of goods through U.S. ports. 'The overwhelming increase in volume, lack of available equipment such as chassis, empty container return policies, lack of available warehouse space are all contributing to the ongoing congestion issues at the ports,' Inman wrote in an email. (Chassis are wheeled equipment that help move shipping containers.) What is the 'California Truck Ban'? The 'truck ban' cited in the post refers to California's Truck and Bus Regulation, administered by the California Air Resources Board, which attempts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and diesel exhaust particulate matter. To meet the current clean air regulations, the state Department of Motor Vehicles blocks new registrations of any oversized vehicles older than 2011 - or those with engines manufactured before 2010. By 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will be required to have 2010 or newer engines. But this policy has been on the books since 2008. Some trucking companies have used the regulations to pressure drivers to buy newer rigs, and some in the industry have claimed that, while not necessarily the cause of the backlog, this kind of policy doesn't help. 'There is simply no evidence to support any claims that the current congestion at our ports has any connection to the state's efforts to clean up California's trucks,' said Stanley Young, the communications director of the California Air Resources Board. 'Port congestion is currently a worldwide problem and there are many contributing factors.' '96% of the trucks' that serve the ports are already compliant with the state's Truck and Bus Regulation, he added. What's causing the supply chain to buckle Experts say that while these regulations may provide some pressure, current port congestion and larger supply chain disruptions are the result of factors that are far more complex than this post suggests, with the issue extending much further than California and its laws. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered factory shutdowns and worker layoffs early-on and exacerbated an already precarious system. 'We had a series of smoldering issues that had been around for a while, and then COVID was kind of the needle that broke the camel's back,' said Robert Handfield, a professor of operations and supply chain management at North Carolina State University. 'Unfortunately, it's a bit of a mess, and it's going to take some time to address.' The global demand for goods bounced back fast as the COVID-19 vaccines became available and restrictions eased in various parts of the world. But that quick rebound left processing plants, manufacturers and businesses struggling to keep up, leading to global supply chain problems. Containers are limited, and semiconductors and critical raw materials like rubber, lumber and steel are running low. The driver shortage has been an issue in the trucking industry for years, experts have said, and COVID-19 made it worse. The average age of the American truck driver is around 48, and officials say the problem will likely get worse in coming years as they begin to retire. Focusing on new recruitments is one answer, and the American Trucking Associations is pushing for the DRIVE-Safe Act in Congress, which would allow 18-year-olds to obtain a commercial driver's license. Currently, federal law dictates that drivers must be 21 and older. Countries have also fallen out of sync during the pandemic, the Wall Street Journal reported, with some nations still enduring lockdowns and other restrictions, and thereby constricting factories and making transportation and logistics more expensive. While the shipping pileups and the broader supply chain disruption show no signs of dissipating, the Biden administration has announced a series of measures to try to relieve the system, including that private companies like UPS and FedEx would expand their business hours and that the Port of Los Angeles would start operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
|
Our ruling Facebook posts claim that the shipping pileups at California ports are being driven, in part, by two policies affecting long-haul truck drivers in California. Truck drivers have been exempt from the gig worker bill since it was passed and the state's clean air regulations have been in place since 2008. While the rules may have had some impact on trucking decisions in the state, the post overstates how much and omits the major role the pandemic has played. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread layoffs and factory closures that haven't yet bounced back to meet the surging consumer demand. For a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is Mostly False. RELATED: High prices and depleted shelves: Here's why the supply chain is a mess - and will be for a while
|
[
"109948-proof-07-92402bdb48cf4cb294f13bcbe9ef2a0b.jpeg"
] |
California's shipping backlog is, in part, caused by a 'California Truck Ban which says all trucks must be 2011 or newer and a law called AB 5 which prohibits Owner Operators.
|
Contradiction
|
As hordes of ships wait to unload at California ports and elsewhere, some are shifting blame to the Golden State's regulations on the trucking industry. 'The NEWS says the California port situation is caused by a driver shortage,' one viral post on Facebook said. 'Not so fast: It is in part caused by a California Truck Ban, which says all trucks must be 2011 or newer, and a law called AB 5, which prohibits Owner Operators.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post is referring to real California policies. But while experts say these rules have likely had some impact on supply chain disruptions, this post overstates their role. Many factors have contributed to the shipping backlog, including a lack of warehouse space and equipment shortages. Most issues can be traced back to the COVID-19 pandemic, experts said, which resulted in factory closures and employee layoffs that crippled production worldwide. The delta variant of the virus that causes COVID-19 further shocked systems that were just starting to recover from the earliest phases of the pandemic. The post points to two separate California policies: a law called AB 5 that was passed in 2019 and aims to give independent contractors more employee rights, and the state's longstanding clean air regulations on heavy-duty vehicles. What is AB 5? Commonly referred to as the 'gig worker bill,' Assembly Bill 5 codified and expanded a 2018 California Supreme Court decision that set a strict new test for employers to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. It went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020. Under the measure, all workers are considered employees unless the hiring business demonstrates that the worker meets three conditions: They should be free to perform the work as they wish, or free from the control and direction of the hiring entity; in a different line of work from the company contracting with them; and operating their own business. The law is intended to require employers to treat more workers as employees entitled to rights and benefits like a guaranteed minimum wage, employee benefits, expense reimbursements, rest or meal breaks and overtime pay. Critics, however, say the measure makes it nearly impossible for truck drivers to be independent contractors because they inevitably work in the same line as the companies they contract with. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2019 that out of approximately 13,000 truckers who serve the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, just a few hundred are classified as employees. Most are considered 'owner operators' who often lease their rigs from trucking companies, drive under those companies' permits and rely on them for work. They are paid by the load and get an annual 1099 tax form, which some freelancers and independent contractors use to report income. But it's hard to quantify what role this law could be playing in California's shipping backlog. That's because the California Trucking Association quickly filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law, and the trucking industry remains under a temporary injunction exempting them from its confines. After a circuit court denied its appeal for a rehearing, the association petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its case. If the high court denies the petition, the injunction will be lifted immediately. At the time AB 5 passed, industry experts said that some owner-operators sought work elsewhere. Some fleets, too, chose to stop doing business with owner-operators in California. Danielle Inman, a spokesperson for the National Retail Foundation, which has lobbied for California to overturn AB 5, told PolitiFact that the state's regulations on trucking impact the availability of drivers and trucks, but many other issues are also disrupting the movement of goods through U.S. ports. 'The overwhelming increase in volume, lack of available equipment such as chassis, empty container return policies, lack of available warehouse space are all contributing to the ongoing congestion issues at the ports,' Inman wrote in an email. (Chassis are wheeled equipment that help move shipping containers.) What is the 'California Truck Ban'? The 'truck ban' cited in the post refers to California's Truck and Bus Regulation, administered by the California Air Resources Board, which attempts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and diesel exhaust particulate matter. To meet the current clean air regulations, the state Department of Motor Vehicles blocks new registrations of any oversized vehicles older than 2011 - or those with engines manufactured before 2010. By 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will be required to have 2010 or newer engines. But this policy has been on the books since 2008. Some trucking companies have used the regulations to pressure drivers to buy newer rigs, and some in the industry have claimed that, while not necessarily the cause of the backlog, this kind of policy doesn't help. 'There is simply no evidence to support any claims that the current congestion at our ports has any connection to the state's efforts to clean up California's trucks,' said Stanley Young, the communications director of the California Air Resources Board. 'Port congestion is currently a worldwide problem and there are many contributing factors.' '96% of the trucks' that serve the ports are already compliant with the state's Truck and Bus Regulation, he added. What's causing the supply chain to buckle Experts say that while these regulations may provide some pressure, current port congestion and larger supply chain disruptions are the result of factors that are far more complex than this post suggests, with the issue extending much further than California and its laws. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered factory shutdowns and worker layoffs early-on and exacerbated an already precarious system. 'We had a series of smoldering issues that had been around for a while, and then COVID was kind of the needle that broke the camel's back,' said Robert Handfield, a professor of operations and supply chain management at North Carolina State University. 'Unfortunately, it's a bit of a mess, and it's going to take some time to address.' The global demand for goods bounced back fast as the COVID-19 vaccines became available and restrictions eased in various parts of the world. But that quick rebound left processing plants, manufacturers and businesses struggling to keep up, leading to global supply chain problems. Containers are limited, and semiconductors and critical raw materials like rubber, lumber and steel are running low. The driver shortage has been an issue in the trucking industry for years, experts have said, and COVID-19 made it worse. The average age of the American truck driver is around 48, and officials say the problem will likely get worse in coming years as they begin to retire. Focusing on new recruitments is one answer, and the American Trucking Associations is pushing for the DRIVE-Safe Act in Congress, which would allow 18-year-olds to obtain a commercial driver's license. Currently, federal law dictates that drivers must be 21 and older. Countries have also fallen out of sync during the pandemic, the Wall Street Journal reported, with some nations still enduring lockdowns and other restrictions, and thereby constricting factories and making transportation and logistics more expensive. While the shipping pileups and the broader supply chain disruption show no signs of dissipating, the Biden administration has announced a series of measures to try to relieve the system, including that private companies like UPS and FedEx would expand their business hours and that the Port of Los Angeles would start operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
|
Our ruling Facebook posts claim that the shipping pileups at California ports are being driven, in part, by two policies affecting long-haul truck drivers in California. Truck drivers have been exempt from the gig worker bill since it was passed and the state's clean air regulations have been in place since 2008. While the rules may have had some impact on trucking decisions in the state, the post overstates how much and omits the major role the pandemic has played. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread layoffs and factory closures that haven't yet bounced back to meet the surging consumer demand. For a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is Mostly False. RELATED: High prices and depleted shelves: Here's why the supply chain is a mess - and will be for a while
|
[
"109948-proof-07-92402bdb48cf4cb294f13bcbe9ef2a0b.jpeg"
] |
California's shipping backlog is, in part, caused by a 'California Truck Ban which says all trucks must be 2011 or newer and a law called AB 5 which prohibits Owner Operators.
|
Contradiction
|
As hordes of ships wait to unload at California ports and elsewhere, some are shifting blame to the Golden State's regulations on the trucking industry. 'The NEWS says the California port situation is caused by a driver shortage,' one viral post on Facebook said. 'Not so fast: It is in part caused by a California Truck Ban, which says all trucks must be 2011 or newer, and a law called AB 5, which prohibits Owner Operators.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post is referring to real California policies. But while experts say these rules have likely had some impact on supply chain disruptions, this post overstates their role. Many factors have contributed to the shipping backlog, including a lack of warehouse space and equipment shortages. Most issues can be traced back to the COVID-19 pandemic, experts said, which resulted in factory closures and employee layoffs that crippled production worldwide. The delta variant of the virus that causes COVID-19 further shocked systems that were just starting to recover from the earliest phases of the pandemic. The post points to two separate California policies: a law called AB 5 that was passed in 2019 and aims to give independent contractors more employee rights, and the state's longstanding clean air regulations on heavy-duty vehicles. What is AB 5? Commonly referred to as the 'gig worker bill,' Assembly Bill 5 codified and expanded a 2018 California Supreme Court decision that set a strict new test for employers to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. It went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020. Under the measure, all workers are considered employees unless the hiring business demonstrates that the worker meets three conditions: They should be free to perform the work as they wish, or free from the control and direction of the hiring entity; in a different line of work from the company contracting with them; and operating their own business. The law is intended to require employers to treat more workers as employees entitled to rights and benefits like a guaranteed minimum wage, employee benefits, expense reimbursements, rest or meal breaks and overtime pay. Critics, however, say the measure makes it nearly impossible for truck drivers to be independent contractors because they inevitably work in the same line as the companies they contract with. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2019 that out of approximately 13,000 truckers who serve the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, just a few hundred are classified as employees. Most are considered 'owner operators' who often lease their rigs from trucking companies, drive under those companies' permits and rely on them for work. They are paid by the load and get an annual 1099 tax form, which some freelancers and independent contractors use to report income. But it's hard to quantify what role this law could be playing in California's shipping backlog. That's because the California Trucking Association quickly filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law, and the trucking industry remains under a temporary injunction exempting them from its confines. After a circuit court denied its appeal for a rehearing, the association petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its case. If the high court denies the petition, the injunction will be lifted immediately. At the time AB 5 passed, industry experts said that some owner-operators sought work elsewhere. Some fleets, too, chose to stop doing business with owner-operators in California. Danielle Inman, a spokesperson for the National Retail Foundation, which has lobbied for California to overturn AB 5, told PolitiFact that the state's regulations on trucking impact the availability of drivers and trucks, but many other issues are also disrupting the movement of goods through U.S. ports. 'The overwhelming increase in volume, lack of available equipment such as chassis, empty container return policies, lack of available warehouse space are all contributing to the ongoing congestion issues at the ports,' Inman wrote in an email. (Chassis are wheeled equipment that help move shipping containers.) What is the 'California Truck Ban'? The 'truck ban' cited in the post refers to California's Truck and Bus Regulation, administered by the California Air Resources Board, which attempts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and diesel exhaust particulate matter. To meet the current clean air regulations, the state Department of Motor Vehicles blocks new registrations of any oversized vehicles older than 2011 - or those with engines manufactured before 2010. By 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will be required to have 2010 or newer engines. But this policy has been on the books since 2008. Some trucking companies have used the regulations to pressure drivers to buy newer rigs, and some in the industry have claimed that, while not necessarily the cause of the backlog, this kind of policy doesn't help. 'There is simply no evidence to support any claims that the current congestion at our ports has any connection to the state's efforts to clean up California's trucks,' said Stanley Young, the communications director of the California Air Resources Board. 'Port congestion is currently a worldwide problem and there are many contributing factors.' '96% of the trucks' that serve the ports are already compliant with the state's Truck and Bus Regulation, he added. What's causing the supply chain to buckle Experts say that while these regulations may provide some pressure, current port congestion and larger supply chain disruptions are the result of factors that are far more complex than this post suggests, with the issue extending much further than California and its laws. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered factory shutdowns and worker layoffs early-on and exacerbated an already precarious system. 'We had a series of smoldering issues that had been around for a while, and then COVID was kind of the needle that broke the camel's back,' said Robert Handfield, a professor of operations and supply chain management at North Carolina State University. 'Unfortunately, it's a bit of a mess, and it's going to take some time to address.' The global demand for goods bounced back fast as the COVID-19 vaccines became available and restrictions eased in various parts of the world. But that quick rebound left processing plants, manufacturers and businesses struggling to keep up, leading to global supply chain problems. Containers are limited, and semiconductors and critical raw materials like rubber, lumber and steel are running low. The driver shortage has been an issue in the trucking industry for years, experts have said, and COVID-19 made it worse. The average age of the American truck driver is around 48, and officials say the problem will likely get worse in coming years as they begin to retire. Focusing on new recruitments is one answer, and the American Trucking Associations is pushing for the DRIVE-Safe Act in Congress, which would allow 18-year-olds to obtain a commercial driver's license. Currently, federal law dictates that drivers must be 21 and older. Countries have also fallen out of sync during the pandemic, the Wall Street Journal reported, with some nations still enduring lockdowns and other restrictions, and thereby constricting factories and making transportation and logistics more expensive. While the shipping pileups and the broader supply chain disruption show no signs of dissipating, the Biden administration has announced a series of measures to try to relieve the system, including that private companies like UPS and FedEx would expand their business hours and that the Port of Los Angeles would start operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
|
Our ruling Facebook posts claim that the shipping pileups at California ports are being driven, in part, by two policies affecting long-haul truck drivers in California. Truck drivers have been exempt from the gig worker bill since it was passed and the state's clean air regulations have been in place since 2008. While the rules may have had some impact on trucking decisions in the state, the post overstates how much and omits the major role the pandemic has played. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread layoffs and factory closures that haven't yet bounced back to meet the surging consumer demand. For a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is Mostly False. RELATED: High prices and depleted shelves: Here's why the supply chain is a mess - and will be for a while
|
[
"109948-proof-07-92402bdb48cf4cb294f13bcbe9ef2a0b.jpeg"
] |
Says officials in Washington, D.C., are 'jamming all communications.
|
Contradiction
|
It had only been June for two hours when SoyBoy2020 sent the tweet. 'WTF is happening? #DCBlackout.' The post was the first instance of the hashtag #dcblackout on Twitter that day. It got four retweets and 13 likes - not bad considering SoyBoy2020 has only five followers. Under normal circumstances, it might have ended there. But by the end of June 1, #dcblackout had become a viral conspiracy theory on Twitter, highlighting how uncertainty surrounding Black Lives Matter protests around the country can lead to the rapid spread of misinformation on social media. On May 31, demonstrations over the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in Minneapolis police custody after a white officer kneeled on his neck, hit a fever pitch in Washington, D.C. Protesters faced off with police and National Guard troops overnight. Multiple fires burned near the White House, and the Washington Monument was surrounded by smoke. In the early hours of June 1, Twitter users like SoyBoy2020 used the chaos to plant the seeds of a false narrative about a government crackdown on protesters. The hoax goes like this: To quell unrest at Black Lives Matter demonstrations, officials in Washington started 'jamming all communications.' That move prevented protesters from using their cell phones to contact each other. 'how does dc go from being on fire to being completely silent?? somethings not adding up,' wrote one of the first Twitter users to share the hashtag, which has been mentioned hundreds of thousands of times. RELATED: Fact-checking misinformation about the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis Washington officials say there's no evidence to support allegations of a communication blackout in the city. 'This appears to be misinformation. We have no confirmation of a cell phone blackout,' said Alaina Gertz, a public affairs specialist at the Metropolitan Police Department, in an email. D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham and representatives from Verizon and AT&T have also debunked the claim. But that didn't stop #dcblackout from taking off on Twitter. By 3 a.m. on the East Coast - one hour after the first mention - the hashtag had been used tens of thousands of times. By 7 a.m., it was showing up in Twitter's list of trending topics. It's not uncommon for hashtags containing misinformation to trend on Twitter. But experts say #dcblackout appears to have been part of a coordinated social media disinformation campaign. 'This is at 2 in the morning, and within the hour, this hashtag has been used 50,000 times,' said Darren Linvill, an associate professor and disinformation expert at Clemson University. 'That doesn't happen when some anonymous account with three followers makes up a hashtag at 2 in the morning. That doesn't happen naturally.' Using a tool called Botometer, which detects whether Twitter accounts have bot-like characteristics, we determined that dozens of the accounts that first shared #dcblackout appear to be automated or partially automated. Others pivoted from tweeting infrequently or about other subjects to posting about Black Lives Matter protests - one sign that a coordinated disinformation campaign is afoot. As people started waking up on the East Coast, the hashtag quickly grew as it was shared among protest sympathizers looking for answers. It incorporated other pieces of misinformation, such as a photo from the ABC show 'Designated Survivor' that some Twitter users claimed showed Washington in flames. One of the photos that was going around, looked similar to the photo above but was actually a screengrab from the ABC Show Designated Survivor. Make sure you do a reverse image search of photos before you share them, especially as news is quickly unfolding. pic.twitter.com/SOYHOE1ysH- MediaWise (@mediawise) June 1, 2020 Then things got weird. Linvill noticed that several Twitter accounts started sharing the exact same language about #dcblackout. It started with a tweet from someone named Bethany at 9 a.m. Yeah...... as someone seeing #dcblackout trending, who lives and works in the DC metro area, and who has friends telecommuting into DC rn..... This hashtag looks like misinformation. 'No social media from DC' because we were asleep. Stop scaring people. #dcsafe- Bethany (@betanianne) June 1, 2020 Botometer suggests that Bethany is a real account holder. But her tweet was copied verbatim hundreds of times by other accounts - including some that appeared to have been hacked. This is alarming. Lol pic.twitter.com/7xbibbJBul- adezero 😷 (@adezero3) June 1, 2020 One of them was Jason Elia, an author and filmmaker who has a verified account on Twitter. At 11:18 a.m., he tweeted the exact same words that Bethany posted more than two hours before. However, in a follow-up tweet, he said it wasn't him. The fuck?! I swear I did not tweet this. I'm in fucking Oklahoma City currently. I hate DC and very few reasons would ever get me to go there. Also I only tweet from iPhone. https://t.co/snRsQFgy4l- Jason Elia (@jedijamesdean) June 1, 2020 Hacking Twitter accounts is a tactic that disinformation campaigns employ to turn authentic users into propaganda machines. ProPublica reported that a recent coronavirus-related operation that uses hacked accounts has ties to the Chinese government. In this case, Linvill said the goal of the disinformation campaign was probably to sow confusion by manipulating the conversation on both sides of the hashtag. 'This is not some guy in his basement,' he said. We reached out to Twitter repeatedly for a comment on #dcblackout, but we haven't heard back. Spokesman Brandon Borrman told the Washington Post that the company has taken action against some of the accounts sharing the hashtag. 'We're taking action proactively on any coordinated attempts to disrupt the public conversation around this issue,' he said. 'We are actively investigating the hashtag #dcblackout and during that process have already suspended hundreds of spammy accounts that tweeted using the hashtag.' Even as media outlets started debunking the hoax and Twitter began taking action, #dcblackout continued to grow. On Twitter, users doubting the #dcblackout conspiracy theory added to its rise. Around noon, the bulk of accounts tweeting with the hashtag were authentic, according to Hoaxy, another tool that measures Twitter accounts with bot-like characteristics. (Screenshot from Hoaxy) By 1 p.m., Google search results for the hoax returned no news articles about it, creating what misinformation researchers call a 'data void,' where the absence of credible information about a topic provides a fertile environment for misinformation to proliferate. The conspiracy theory that Washington officials were restricting the communications of Black Lives Matter protesters also made its way to other social media platforms. We found several examples of claims related to #dcblackout shared by political pages on Facebook. Some of the pages had names with terms used by far-right extremists and were created within the past few weeks. Linvill said disinformation campaigns like #dcblackout prey on unsuspecting social media users to push a specific narrative. To avoid them, he suggests staying vigilant about what you share and how you protect yourself online. 'You have to realize that your social media account is a tool that other people want access to for a variety of reasons,' Linvill said.
|
Our ruling Twitter posts using the hashtag #dcblackout suggested that officials in Washington started 'jamming all communications' to quell unrest at Black Lives Matter demonstrations. There's no evidence of any effort. Experts say #dcblackout appears to have been part of a coordinated social media disinformation campaign that grew on Twitter and spread to other platforms. We rate the claim False.
|
[
"109953-proof-01-62fab983d5e8d961109164fb6b8a994d.jpg"
] |
Says officials in Washington, D.C., are 'jamming all communications.
|
Contradiction
|
It had only been June for two hours when SoyBoy2020 sent the tweet. 'WTF is happening? #DCBlackout.' The post was the first instance of the hashtag #dcblackout on Twitter that day. It got four retweets and 13 likes - not bad considering SoyBoy2020 has only five followers. Under normal circumstances, it might have ended there. But by the end of June 1, #dcblackout had become a viral conspiracy theory on Twitter, highlighting how uncertainty surrounding Black Lives Matter protests around the country can lead to the rapid spread of misinformation on social media. On May 31, demonstrations over the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in Minneapolis police custody after a white officer kneeled on his neck, hit a fever pitch in Washington, D.C. Protesters faced off with police and National Guard troops overnight. Multiple fires burned near the White House, and the Washington Monument was surrounded by smoke. In the early hours of June 1, Twitter users like SoyBoy2020 used the chaos to plant the seeds of a false narrative about a government crackdown on protesters. The hoax goes like this: To quell unrest at Black Lives Matter demonstrations, officials in Washington started 'jamming all communications.' That move prevented protesters from using their cell phones to contact each other. 'how does dc go from being on fire to being completely silent?? somethings not adding up,' wrote one of the first Twitter users to share the hashtag, which has been mentioned hundreds of thousands of times. RELATED: Fact-checking misinformation about the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis Washington officials say there's no evidence to support allegations of a communication blackout in the city. 'This appears to be misinformation. We have no confirmation of a cell phone blackout,' said Alaina Gertz, a public affairs specialist at the Metropolitan Police Department, in an email. D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham and representatives from Verizon and AT&T have also debunked the claim. But that didn't stop #dcblackout from taking off on Twitter. By 3 a.m. on the East Coast - one hour after the first mention - the hashtag had been used tens of thousands of times. By 7 a.m., it was showing up in Twitter's list of trending topics. It's not uncommon for hashtags containing misinformation to trend on Twitter. But experts say #dcblackout appears to have been part of a coordinated social media disinformation campaign. 'This is at 2 in the morning, and within the hour, this hashtag has been used 50,000 times,' said Darren Linvill, an associate professor and disinformation expert at Clemson University. 'That doesn't happen when some anonymous account with three followers makes up a hashtag at 2 in the morning. That doesn't happen naturally.' Using a tool called Botometer, which detects whether Twitter accounts have bot-like characteristics, we determined that dozens of the accounts that first shared #dcblackout appear to be automated or partially automated. Others pivoted from tweeting infrequently or about other subjects to posting about Black Lives Matter protests - one sign that a coordinated disinformation campaign is afoot. As people started waking up on the East Coast, the hashtag quickly grew as it was shared among protest sympathizers looking for answers. It incorporated other pieces of misinformation, such as a photo from the ABC show 'Designated Survivor' that some Twitter users claimed showed Washington in flames. One of the photos that was going around, looked similar to the photo above but was actually a screengrab from the ABC Show Designated Survivor. Make sure you do a reverse image search of photos before you share them, especially as news is quickly unfolding. pic.twitter.com/SOYHOE1ysH- MediaWise (@mediawise) June 1, 2020 Then things got weird. Linvill noticed that several Twitter accounts started sharing the exact same language about #dcblackout. It started with a tweet from someone named Bethany at 9 a.m. Yeah...... as someone seeing #dcblackout trending, who lives and works in the DC metro area, and who has friends telecommuting into DC rn..... This hashtag looks like misinformation. 'No social media from DC' because we were asleep. Stop scaring people. #dcsafe- Bethany (@betanianne) June 1, 2020 Botometer suggests that Bethany is a real account holder. But her tweet was copied verbatim hundreds of times by other accounts - including some that appeared to have been hacked. This is alarming. Lol pic.twitter.com/7xbibbJBul- adezero 😷 (@adezero3) June 1, 2020 One of them was Jason Elia, an author and filmmaker who has a verified account on Twitter. At 11:18 a.m., he tweeted the exact same words that Bethany posted more than two hours before. However, in a follow-up tweet, he said it wasn't him. The fuck?! I swear I did not tweet this. I'm in fucking Oklahoma City currently. I hate DC and very few reasons would ever get me to go there. Also I only tweet from iPhone. https://t.co/snRsQFgy4l- Jason Elia (@jedijamesdean) June 1, 2020 Hacking Twitter accounts is a tactic that disinformation campaigns employ to turn authentic users into propaganda machines. ProPublica reported that a recent coronavirus-related operation that uses hacked accounts has ties to the Chinese government. In this case, Linvill said the goal of the disinformation campaign was probably to sow confusion by manipulating the conversation on both sides of the hashtag. 'This is not some guy in his basement,' he said. We reached out to Twitter repeatedly for a comment on #dcblackout, but we haven't heard back. Spokesman Brandon Borrman told the Washington Post that the company has taken action against some of the accounts sharing the hashtag. 'We're taking action proactively on any coordinated attempts to disrupt the public conversation around this issue,' he said. 'We are actively investigating the hashtag #dcblackout and during that process have already suspended hundreds of spammy accounts that tweeted using the hashtag.' Even as media outlets started debunking the hoax and Twitter began taking action, #dcblackout continued to grow. On Twitter, users doubting the #dcblackout conspiracy theory added to its rise. Around noon, the bulk of accounts tweeting with the hashtag were authentic, according to Hoaxy, another tool that measures Twitter accounts with bot-like characteristics. (Screenshot from Hoaxy) By 1 p.m., Google search results for the hoax returned no news articles about it, creating what misinformation researchers call a 'data void,' where the absence of credible information about a topic provides a fertile environment for misinformation to proliferate. The conspiracy theory that Washington officials were restricting the communications of Black Lives Matter protesters also made its way to other social media platforms. We found several examples of claims related to #dcblackout shared by political pages on Facebook. Some of the pages had names with terms used by far-right extremists and were created within the past few weeks. Linvill said disinformation campaigns like #dcblackout prey on unsuspecting social media users to push a specific narrative. To avoid them, he suggests staying vigilant about what you share and how you protect yourself online. 'You have to realize that your social media account is a tool that other people want access to for a variety of reasons,' Linvill said.
|
Our ruling Twitter posts using the hashtag #dcblackout suggested that officials in Washington started 'jamming all communications' to quell unrest at Black Lives Matter demonstrations. There's no evidence of any effort. Experts say #dcblackout appears to have been part of a coordinated social media disinformation campaign that grew on Twitter and spread to other platforms. We rate the claim False.
|
[
"109953-proof-01-62fab983d5e8d961109164fb6b8a994d.jpg"
] |
Says officials in Washington, D.C., are 'jamming all communications.
|
Contradiction
|
It had only been June for two hours when SoyBoy2020 sent the tweet. 'WTF is happening? #DCBlackout.' The post was the first instance of the hashtag #dcblackout on Twitter that day. It got four retweets and 13 likes - not bad considering SoyBoy2020 has only five followers. Under normal circumstances, it might have ended there. But by the end of June 1, #dcblackout had become a viral conspiracy theory on Twitter, highlighting how uncertainty surrounding Black Lives Matter protests around the country can lead to the rapid spread of misinformation on social media. On May 31, demonstrations over the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in Minneapolis police custody after a white officer kneeled on his neck, hit a fever pitch in Washington, D.C. Protesters faced off with police and National Guard troops overnight. Multiple fires burned near the White House, and the Washington Monument was surrounded by smoke. In the early hours of June 1, Twitter users like SoyBoy2020 used the chaos to plant the seeds of a false narrative about a government crackdown on protesters. The hoax goes like this: To quell unrest at Black Lives Matter demonstrations, officials in Washington started 'jamming all communications.' That move prevented protesters from using their cell phones to contact each other. 'how does dc go from being on fire to being completely silent?? somethings not adding up,' wrote one of the first Twitter users to share the hashtag, which has been mentioned hundreds of thousands of times. RELATED: Fact-checking misinformation about the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis Washington officials say there's no evidence to support allegations of a communication blackout in the city. 'This appears to be misinformation. We have no confirmation of a cell phone blackout,' said Alaina Gertz, a public affairs specialist at the Metropolitan Police Department, in an email. D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham and representatives from Verizon and AT&T have also debunked the claim. But that didn't stop #dcblackout from taking off on Twitter. By 3 a.m. on the East Coast - one hour after the first mention - the hashtag had been used tens of thousands of times. By 7 a.m., it was showing up in Twitter's list of trending topics. It's not uncommon for hashtags containing misinformation to trend on Twitter. But experts say #dcblackout appears to have been part of a coordinated social media disinformation campaign. 'This is at 2 in the morning, and within the hour, this hashtag has been used 50,000 times,' said Darren Linvill, an associate professor and disinformation expert at Clemson University. 'That doesn't happen when some anonymous account with three followers makes up a hashtag at 2 in the morning. That doesn't happen naturally.' Using a tool called Botometer, which detects whether Twitter accounts have bot-like characteristics, we determined that dozens of the accounts that first shared #dcblackout appear to be automated or partially automated. Others pivoted from tweeting infrequently or about other subjects to posting about Black Lives Matter protests - one sign that a coordinated disinformation campaign is afoot. As people started waking up on the East Coast, the hashtag quickly grew as it was shared among protest sympathizers looking for answers. It incorporated other pieces of misinformation, such as a photo from the ABC show 'Designated Survivor' that some Twitter users claimed showed Washington in flames. One of the photos that was going around, looked similar to the photo above but was actually a screengrab from the ABC Show Designated Survivor. Make sure you do a reverse image search of photos before you share them, especially as news is quickly unfolding. pic.twitter.com/SOYHOE1ysH- MediaWise (@mediawise) June 1, 2020 Then things got weird. Linvill noticed that several Twitter accounts started sharing the exact same language about #dcblackout. It started with a tweet from someone named Bethany at 9 a.m. Yeah...... as someone seeing #dcblackout trending, who lives and works in the DC metro area, and who has friends telecommuting into DC rn..... This hashtag looks like misinformation. 'No social media from DC' because we were asleep. Stop scaring people. #dcsafe- Bethany (@betanianne) June 1, 2020 Botometer suggests that Bethany is a real account holder. But her tweet was copied verbatim hundreds of times by other accounts - including some that appeared to have been hacked. This is alarming. Lol pic.twitter.com/7xbibbJBul- adezero 😷 (@adezero3) June 1, 2020 One of them was Jason Elia, an author and filmmaker who has a verified account on Twitter. At 11:18 a.m., he tweeted the exact same words that Bethany posted more than two hours before. However, in a follow-up tweet, he said it wasn't him. The fuck?! I swear I did not tweet this. I'm in fucking Oklahoma City currently. I hate DC and very few reasons would ever get me to go there. Also I only tweet from iPhone. https://t.co/snRsQFgy4l- Jason Elia (@jedijamesdean) June 1, 2020 Hacking Twitter accounts is a tactic that disinformation campaigns employ to turn authentic users into propaganda machines. ProPublica reported that a recent coronavirus-related operation that uses hacked accounts has ties to the Chinese government. In this case, Linvill said the goal of the disinformation campaign was probably to sow confusion by manipulating the conversation on both sides of the hashtag. 'This is not some guy in his basement,' he said. We reached out to Twitter repeatedly for a comment on #dcblackout, but we haven't heard back. Spokesman Brandon Borrman told the Washington Post that the company has taken action against some of the accounts sharing the hashtag. 'We're taking action proactively on any coordinated attempts to disrupt the public conversation around this issue,' he said. 'We are actively investigating the hashtag #dcblackout and during that process have already suspended hundreds of spammy accounts that tweeted using the hashtag.' Even as media outlets started debunking the hoax and Twitter began taking action, #dcblackout continued to grow. On Twitter, users doubting the #dcblackout conspiracy theory added to its rise. Around noon, the bulk of accounts tweeting with the hashtag were authentic, according to Hoaxy, another tool that measures Twitter accounts with bot-like characteristics. (Screenshot from Hoaxy) By 1 p.m., Google search results for the hoax returned no news articles about it, creating what misinformation researchers call a 'data void,' where the absence of credible information about a topic provides a fertile environment for misinformation to proliferate. The conspiracy theory that Washington officials were restricting the communications of Black Lives Matter protesters also made its way to other social media platforms. We found several examples of claims related to #dcblackout shared by political pages on Facebook. Some of the pages had names with terms used by far-right extremists and were created within the past few weeks. Linvill said disinformation campaigns like #dcblackout prey on unsuspecting social media users to push a specific narrative. To avoid them, he suggests staying vigilant about what you share and how you protect yourself online. 'You have to realize that your social media account is a tool that other people want access to for a variety of reasons,' Linvill said.
|
Our ruling Twitter posts using the hashtag #dcblackout suggested that officials in Washington started 'jamming all communications' to quell unrest at Black Lives Matter demonstrations. There's no evidence of any effort. Experts say #dcblackout appears to have been part of a coordinated social media disinformation campaign that grew on Twitter and spread to other platforms. We rate the claim False.
|
[
"109953-proof-01-62fab983d5e8d961109164fb6b8a994d.jpg"
] |
Hobby Lobby's CEO wrote a letter saying the company's stores may close.
|
Contradiction
|
A statement attributed to Hobby Lobby CEO David Green that's being shared on social media talks about the company's Christian principles and how they're at odds with government mandates to cover emergency contraception. The words are real - Green penned them for a September 2012 column in USA Today explaining why Hobby Lobby sued the federal government over a provision in the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to offer their employees health care plans that cover all forms of contraception. Nearly nine years later, it's being recirculated online without context and with some creative additions. In one Facebook post from April 15, for example, the statement is titled: 'Hobby Lobby, We may close.' It also includes three sentences that don't appear in Green's USA Today column: 'The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not exempt Christian organizations including the Catholic Church. Since you will not see this in the liberal media, please pass this on to all your contacts.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Hobby Lobby didn't respond to PolitiFact's questions about the Facebook post. But the original version of the column did appear in the media - USA Today published it, under the headline: 'Christian companies can't bow to sinful mandate.' Green's column made no mention of Hobby Lobby closing. 'We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit,' he wrote. Under the Obamacare mandate, he said, the government threatened 'to fine job creators in a bad economy.' Green wrote that he felt like the company had no choice but to go to court. In the end, the Hobby Lobby case went to the Supreme Court, and in a 5-4 decision in 2014, the company prevailed. Somebody who saw one of the recent Facebook posts sharing Green's 2012 column may not realize that, and mistake his concerns as new. They're not. But more importantly, the posts wrongly claim that Green said Hobby Lobby stores may close. That wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. We rate this post Mostly False.
|
We rate this post Mostly False.
|
[] |
Hobby Lobby's CEO wrote a letter saying the company's stores may close.
|
Contradiction
|
A statement attributed to Hobby Lobby CEO David Green that's being shared on social media talks about the company's Christian principles and how they're at odds with government mandates to cover emergency contraception. The words are real - Green penned them for a September 2012 column in USA Today explaining why Hobby Lobby sued the federal government over a provision in the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to offer their employees health care plans that cover all forms of contraception. Nearly nine years later, it's being recirculated online without context and with some creative additions. In one Facebook post from April 15, for example, the statement is titled: 'Hobby Lobby, We may close.' It also includes three sentences that don't appear in Green's USA Today column: 'The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not exempt Christian organizations including the Catholic Church. Since you will not see this in the liberal media, please pass this on to all your contacts.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Hobby Lobby didn't respond to PolitiFact's questions about the Facebook post. But the original version of the column did appear in the media - USA Today published it, under the headline: 'Christian companies can't bow to sinful mandate.' Green's column made no mention of Hobby Lobby closing. 'We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit,' he wrote. Under the Obamacare mandate, he said, the government threatened 'to fine job creators in a bad economy.' Green wrote that he felt like the company had no choice but to go to court. In the end, the Hobby Lobby case went to the Supreme Court, and in a 5-4 decision in 2014, the company prevailed. Somebody who saw one of the recent Facebook posts sharing Green's 2012 column may not realize that, and mistake his concerns as new. They're not. But more importantly, the posts wrongly claim that Green said Hobby Lobby stores may close. That wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. We rate this post Mostly False.
|
We rate this post Mostly False.
|
[] |
Tennis star Serena Williams wrote that she's 'sick of COVID-19. I'm sick of black vs. white. I'm sick of Democrats vs. Republicans. I'm sick of gay vs. straight. I'm sick of Christians vs atheists. I'm REALLY sick of the media.
|
Contradiction
|
You're probably seeing this story because you or someone you know shared an image of a post from Serena Williams. The message starts like this: 'I'm sick of COVID-19. I'm sick of black vs. white. I'm sick of Democrats vs. Republicans. I'm sick of gay vs. straight. I'm sick of Christians vs atheists. I'm REALLY sick of the media. I'm sick of no one being allowed to think what they want & feel what they do without offending someone.' This image was flagged to fact-checkers like PolitiFact by Facebook as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation. The message of the post is an opinion, and therefore nothing for us to fact-check. But as the message was shared - and shared, and shared - someone made one significant and misleading change to the message. Someone took a post from a person named Serena Williams and manipulated the image slightly to make it appear as though it came from the tennis superstar of the same name. Here's an image of the post being shared with the profile picture altered to look like it came from Williams the tennis pro. The authentic post, from the non-famous Serena Williams, is here. In her bio, she notes: 'Nope, not THAT Serena Williams.' The post does not appear on the Facebook page belonging to Serena Williams, the tennis star. Still, many have gotten tripped up by the wrong post being shared, including NBA player Rudy Gobert. For what it's worth, the viral post does not sound like something Williams the tennis star would say. She has supported causes related to the Black Lives Matter movement. She hosted a discussion on her Instagram page, with Bryan Stevenson, the founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, a human rights organization in Montgomery, Ala. In the video, Williams said she knows she's been 'wronged' because of her race, and 'that's terrible that I have to expect that.' She described how her father moved from Mississippi to California because of concerns over his safety. Williams, the tennis pro, also talked about Confederate statues, saying: 'Why would you want to look at a statue of someone who wanted ... mass killings of innocent people?'
|
Our ruling An image being shared online purports to come from tennis star Serena Williams. It says, in part, that she's 'sick of COVID-19. I'm sick of black vs. white. I'm sick of Democrats vs. Republicans. I'm sick of gay vs. straight. I'm sick of Christians vs atheists. I'm REALLY sick of the media. I'm sick of no one being allowed to think what they want & feel what they do without offending someone.' The words were written by a person named Serena Williams, but someone took that post, and changed it so that it looked like it came from Williams the tennis star. Professional athlete Serena Williams never wrote that, and based on recent interviews, probably wouldn't agree with the sentiment. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Tennis star Serena Williams wrote that she's 'sick of COVID-19. I'm sick of black vs. white. I'm sick of Democrats vs. Republicans. I'm sick of gay vs. straight. I'm sick of Christians vs atheists. I'm REALLY sick of the media.
|
Contradiction
|
You're probably seeing this story because you or someone you know shared an image of a post from Serena Williams. The message starts like this: 'I'm sick of COVID-19. I'm sick of black vs. white. I'm sick of Democrats vs. Republicans. I'm sick of gay vs. straight. I'm sick of Christians vs atheists. I'm REALLY sick of the media. I'm sick of no one being allowed to think what they want & feel what they do without offending someone.' This image was flagged to fact-checkers like PolitiFact by Facebook as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation. The message of the post is an opinion, and therefore nothing for us to fact-check. But as the message was shared - and shared, and shared - someone made one significant and misleading change to the message. Someone took a post from a person named Serena Williams and manipulated the image slightly to make it appear as though it came from the tennis superstar of the same name. Here's an image of the post being shared with the profile picture altered to look like it came from Williams the tennis pro. The authentic post, from the non-famous Serena Williams, is here. In her bio, she notes: 'Nope, not THAT Serena Williams.' The post does not appear on the Facebook page belonging to Serena Williams, the tennis star. Still, many have gotten tripped up by the wrong post being shared, including NBA player Rudy Gobert. For what it's worth, the viral post does not sound like something Williams the tennis star would say. She has supported causes related to the Black Lives Matter movement. She hosted a discussion on her Instagram page, with Bryan Stevenson, the founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, a human rights organization in Montgomery, Ala. In the video, Williams said she knows she's been 'wronged' because of her race, and 'that's terrible that I have to expect that.' She described how her father moved from Mississippi to California because of concerns over his safety. Williams, the tennis pro, also talked about Confederate statues, saying: 'Why would you want to look at a statue of someone who wanted ... mass killings of innocent people?'
|
Our ruling An image being shared online purports to come from tennis star Serena Williams. It says, in part, that she's 'sick of COVID-19. I'm sick of black vs. white. I'm sick of Democrats vs. Republicans. I'm sick of gay vs. straight. I'm sick of Christians vs atheists. I'm REALLY sick of the media. I'm sick of no one being allowed to think what they want & feel what they do without offending someone.' The words were written by a person named Serena Williams, but someone took that post, and changed it so that it looked like it came from Williams the tennis star. Professional athlete Serena Williams never wrote that, and based on recent interviews, probably wouldn't agree with the sentiment. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Tennis star Serena Williams wrote that she's 'sick of COVID-19. I'm sick of black vs. white. I'm sick of Democrats vs. Republicans. I'm sick of gay vs. straight. I'm sick of Christians vs atheists. I'm REALLY sick of the media.
|
Contradiction
|
You're probably seeing this story because you or someone you know shared an image of a post from Serena Williams. The message starts like this: 'I'm sick of COVID-19. I'm sick of black vs. white. I'm sick of Democrats vs. Republicans. I'm sick of gay vs. straight. I'm sick of Christians vs atheists. I'm REALLY sick of the media. I'm sick of no one being allowed to think what they want & feel what they do without offending someone.' This image was flagged to fact-checkers like PolitiFact by Facebook as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation. The message of the post is an opinion, and therefore nothing for us to fact-check. But as the message was shared - and shared, and shared - someone made one significant and misleading change to the message. Someone took a post from a person named Serena Williams and manipulated the image slightly to make it appear as though it came from the tennis superstar of the same name. Here's an image of the post being shared with the profile picture altered to look like it came from Williams the tennis pro. The authentic post, from the non-famous Serena Williams, is here. In her bio, she notes: 'Nope, not THAT Serena Williams.' The post does not appear on the Facebook page belonging to Serena Williams, the tennis star. Still, many have gotten tripped up by the wrong post being shared, including NBA player Rudy Gobert. For what it's worth, the viral post does not sound like something Williams the tennis star would say. She has supported causes related to the Black Lives Matter movement. She hosted a discussion on her Instagram page, with Bryan Stevenson, the founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, a human rights organization in Montgomery, Ala. In the video, Williams said she knows she's been 'wronged' because of her race, and 'that's terrible that I have to expect that.' She described how her father moved from Mississippi to California because of concerns over his safety. Williams, the tennis pro, also talked about Confederate statues, saying: 'Why would you want to look at a statue of someone who wanted ... mass killings of innocent people?'
|
Our ruling An image being shared online purports to come from tennis star Serena Williams. It says, in part, that she's 'sick of COVID-19. I'm sick of black vs. white. I'm sick of Democrats vs. Republicans. I'm sick of gay vs. straight. I'm sick of Christians vs atheists. I'm REALLY sick of the media. I'm sick of no one being allowed to think what they want & feel what they do without offending someone.' The words were written by a person named Serena Williams, but someone took that post, and changed it so that it looked like it came from Williams the tennis star. Professional athlete Serena Williams never wrote that, and based on recent interviews, probably wouldn't agree with the sentiment. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Says NBC News' Kristen Welker 'gave thousands of dollars to Obama, Clinton and Biden, is registered as a Democrat & her family spent Christmas with the Obamas at the White House.
|
Contradiction
|
As she prepares to moderate the final presidential debate in Nashville, Tenn., NBC News White House correspondent Kristen Welker faces unfounded accusations on social media that claim she's biased toward Democrats. Welker has not donated thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates, registered as a Democrat or 'spent Christmas' at the White House with President Barack Obama, despite what an Oct. 17 Facebook post claims. 'Kristen Welker, of NBC, the next debate moderator chosen by the 'unbiased' presidential commission, gave thousands of dollars to Obama, Clinton and Biden, is registered as a Democrat (and) her family spent Christmas with the Obamas at the White House,' the post, featuring photos of Welker and her family, says. 'Her mother is an activist for Biden!' The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) President Donald Trump has leveled similar complaints alleging bias, tweeting that Welker has 'always been terrible & unfair' and calling her a 'dyed-in-the-wool, radical-left Democrat.' In January, Trump congratulated Welker for landing a weekend anchor position with NBC. The Facebook post's claims appear to have derived from an Oct. 17 report from the New York Post. The article said Welker's parents have donated to Democrats and suggested that a photo of Welker at a White House holiday reception in 2012 was evidence of partisan bias. Welker is unaffiliated, no donations Federal Election Commission records don't show any donations to political candidates from Welker, let alone 'thousands of dollars' to Obama, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and Bill or Hillary Clinton. An NBC News spokesperson confirmed that she hasn't donated. Welker isn't registered to vote as a Democrat, either. According to the District of Columbia Board of Elections, Welker has been registered in Washington, D.C., with no party affiliation since 2016. She had previously registered as a Democrat in 2012, the board's records show. The New York Post wrote that she was also registered as a Democrat in Rhode Island in 2004. Welker's parents have given money to Democratic candidates, including Biden, according to the Federal Election Commission's records. But Welker's mother, Julie Welker, told PolitiFact that she does not have a role with the Biden campaign. 'I am in no way an activist for Joe Biden,' she said. 'I am busy with my full-time job.' Welker didn't spend Christmas with the Obamas The Facebook post's claim that Welker and her family 'spent Christmas with the Obamas at the White House' is also inaccurate, as scores of journalists and pundits pointed out on Twitter. The claim is rooted in a photo Welker uploaded to Facebook on Dec. 13, 2012. The photo shows Welker and a man the New York Post identified as 'family' posing for a picture in a room full of Christmas decorations with Barack and Michelle Obama. The photo was snapped at a White House holiday press party attended by the White House press corps, the NBC News spokesperson said. Welker attended a similar reception hosted by Trump in 2017. Trump canceled the gathering in 2018. Generations of media members have attended such events, which predate Obama by decades and often include lines for photos. Similar photos show the Obamas with conservatives, including media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who owns the New York Post. Steven Thomma, executive director of the White House Correspondents Association, an organization of journalists who cover the White House, said he's attended most of the White House's holiday receptions for the press since 1993, when Bill Clinton was president. Invitees are typically allowed to bring one guest, Thomma said, and the White House has often split the press between one reception primarily for TV and another for print and wire services. 'Guests are asked to go to the ground level, where they wait in line for a quick photo with the president and first lady,' Thomma said in an email to PolitiFact. 'Staff is very strict about limiting time spent on small talk to less than 1-2 minutes, to keep the line moving.' 'The photo is taken by the White House photographer, and sent to every guest several days later,' Thomma said. 'Guests commonly post them on Facebook and other social media.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says Welker 'gave thousands of dollars to Obama, Clinton and Biden, is registered as a Democrat & her family spent Christmas with the Obamas at the White House.' The claims in the post are wrong or exaggerated. First, FEC records don't show any political contributions from Welker. Second, Welker is registered to vote in Washington, D.C., with no party affiliation. Third, Welker did not take her family to spend Christmas with the Obamas. She posed for a photo at a White House reception hosted for the press in 2012. We rate the Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Says NBC News' Kristen Welker 'gave thousands of dollars to Obama, Clinton and Biden, is registered as a Democrat & her family spent Christmas with the Obamas at the White House.
|
Contradiction
|
As she prepares to moderate the final presidential debate in Nashville, Tenn., NBC News White House correspondent Kristen Welker faces unfounded accusations on social media that claim she's biased toward Democrats. Welker has not donated thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates, registered as a Democrat or 'spent Christmas' at the White House with President Barack Obama, despite what an Oct. 17 Facebook post claims. 'Kristen Welker, of NBC, the next debate moderator chosen by the 'unbiased' presidential commission, gave thousands of dollars to Obama, Clinton and Biden, is registered as a Democrat (and) her family spent Christmas with the Obamas at the White House,' the post, featuring photos of Welker and her family, says. 'Her mother is an activist for Biden!' The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) President Donald Trump has leveled similar complaints alleging bias, tweeting that Welker has 'always been terrible & unfair' and calling her a 'dyed-in-the-wool, radical-left Democrat.' In January, Trump congratulated Welker for landing a weekend anchor position with NBC. The Facebook post's claims appear to have derived from an Oct. 17 report from the New York Post. The article said Welker's parents have donated to Democrats and suggested that a photo of Welker at a White House holiday reception in 2012 was evidence of partisan bias. Welker is unaffiliated, no donations Federal Election Commission records don't show any donations to political candidates from Welker, let alone 'thousands of dollars' to Obama, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and Bill or Hillary Clinton. An NBC News spokesperson confirmed that she hasn't donated. Welker isn't registered to vote as a Democrat, either. According to the District of Columbia Board of Elections, Welker has been registered in Washington, D.C., with no party affiliation since 2016. She had previously registered as a Democrat in 2012, the board's records show. The New York Post wrote that she was also registered as a Democrat in Rhode Island in 2004. Welker's parents have given money to Democratic candidates, including Biden, according to the Federal Election Commission's records. But Welker's mother, Julie Welker, told PolitiFact that she does not have a role with the Biden campaign. 'I am in no way an activist for Joe Biden,' she said. 'I am busy with my full-time job.' Welker didn't spend Christmas with the Obamas The Facebook post's claim that Welker and her family 'spent Christmas with the Obamas at the White House' is also inaccurate, as scores of journalists and pundits pointed out on Twitter. The claim is rooted in a photo Welker uploaded to Facebook on Dec. 13, 2012. The photo shows Welker and a man the New York Post identified as 'family' posing for a picture in a room full of Christmas decorations with Barack and Michelle Obama. The photo was snapped at a White House holiday press party attended by the White House press corps, the NBC News spokesperson said. Welker attended a similar reception hosted by Trump in 2017. Trump canceled the gathering in 2018. Generations of media members have attended such events, which predate Obama by decades and often include lines for photos. Similar photos show the Obamas with conservatives, including media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who owns the New York Post. Steven Thomma, executive director of the White House Correspondents Association, an organization of journalists who cover the White House, said he's attended most of the White House's holiday receptions for the press since 1993, when Bill Clinton was president. Invitees are typically allowed to bring one guest, Thomma said, and the White House has often split the press between one reception primarily for TV and another for print and wire services. 'Guests are asked to go to the ground level, where they wait in line for a quick photo with the president and first lady,' Thomma said in an email to PolitiFact. 'Staff is very strict about limiting time spent on small talk to less than 1-2 minutes, to keep the line moving.' 'The photo is taken by the White House photographer, and sent to every guest several days later,' Thomma said. 'Guests commonly post them on Facebook and other social media.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says Welker 'gave thousands of dollars to Obama, Clinton and Biden, is registered as a Democrat & her family spent Christmas with the Obamas at the White House.' The claims in the post are wrong or exaggerated. First, FEC records don't show any political contributions from Welker. Second, Welker is registered to vote in Washington, D.C., with no party affiliation. Third, Welker did not take her family to spend Christmas with the Obamas. She posed for a photo at a White House reception hosted for the press in 2012. We rate the Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Says NBC News' Kristen Welker 'gave thousands of dollars to Obama, Clinton and Biden, is registered as a Democrat & her family spent Christmas with the Obamas at the White House.
|
Contradiction
|
As she prepares to moderate the final presidential debate in Nashville, Tenn., NBC News White House correspondent Kristen Welker faces unfounded accusations on social media that claim she's biased toward Democrats. Welker has not donated thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates, registered as a Democrat or 'spent Christmas' at the White House with President Barack Obama, despite what an Oct. 17 Facebook post claims. 'Kristen Welker, of NBC, the next debate moderator chosen by the 'unbiased' presidential commission, gave thousands of dollars to Obama, Clinton and Biden, is registered as a Democrat (and) her family spent Christmas with the Obamas at the White House,' the post, featuring photos of Welker and her family, says. 'Her mother is an activist for Biden!' The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) President Donald Trump has leveled similar complaints alleging bias, tweeting that Welker has 'always been terrible & unfair' and calling her a 'dyed-in-the-wool, radical-left Democrat.' In January, Trump congratulated Welker for landing a weekend anchor position with NBC. The Facebook post's claims appear to have derived from an Oct. 17 report from the New York Post. The article said Welker's parents have donated to Democrats and suggested that a photo of Welker at a White House holiday reception in 2012 was evidence of partisan bias. Welker is unaffiliated, no donations Federal Election Commission records don't show any donations to political candidates from Welker, let alone 'thousands of dollars' to Obama, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and Bill or Hillary Clinton. An NBC News spokesperson confirmed that she hasn't donated. Welker isn't registered to vote as a Democrat, either. According to the District of Columbia Board of Elections, Welker has been registered in Washington, D.C., with no party affiliation since 2016. She had previously registered as a Democrat in 2012, the board's records show. The New York Post wrote that she was also registered as a Democrat in Rhode Island in 2004. Welker's parents have given money to Democratic candidates, including Biden, according to the Federal Election Commission's records. But Welker's mother, Julie Welker, told PolitiFact that she does not have a role with the Biden campaign. 'I am in no way an activist for Joe Biden,' she said. 'I am busy with my full-time job.' Welker didn't spend Christmas with the Obamas The Facebook post's claim that Welker and her family 'spent Christmas with the Obamas at the White House' is also inaccurate, as scores of journalists and pundits pointed out on Twitter. The claim is rooted in a photo Welker uploaded to Facebook on Dec. 13, 2012. The photo shows Welker and a man the New York Post identified as 'family' posing for a picture in a room full of Christmas decorations with Barack and Michelle Obama. The photo was snapped at a White House holiday press party attended by the White House press corps, the NBC News spokesperson said. Welker attended a similar reception hosted by Trump in 2017. Trump canceled the gathering in 2018. Generations of media members have attended such events, which predate Obama by decades and often include lines for photos. Similar photos show the Obamas with conservatives, including media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who owns the New York Post. Steven Thomma, executive director of the White House Correspondents Association, an organization of journalists who cover the White House, said he's attended most of the White House's holiday receptions for the press since 1993, when Bill Clinton was president. Invitees are typically allowed to bring one guest, Thomma said, and the White House has often split the press between one reception primarily for TV and another for print and wire services. 'Guests are asked to go to the ground level, where they wait in line for a quick photo with the president and first lady,' Thomma said in an email to PolitiFact. 'Staff is very strict about limiting time spent on small talk to less than 1-2 minutes, to keep the line moving.' 'The photo is taken by the White House photographer, and sent to every guest several days later,' Thomma said. 'Guests commonly post them on Facebook and other social media.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says Welker 'gave thousands of dollars to Obama, Clinton and Biden, is registered as a Democrat & her family spent Christmas with the Obamas at the White House.' The claims in the post are wrong or exaggerated. First, FEC records don't show any political contributions from Welker. Second, Welker is registered to vote in Washington, D.C., with no party affiliation. Third, Welker did not take her family to spend Christmas with the Obamas. She posed for a photo at a White House reception hosted for the press in 2012. We rate the Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Says Joe Biden is a socialist.
|
Contradiction
|
In bus tours across Florida, on social media and on TV airwaves, in English and in Spanish, President Donald Trump and his allies have portrayed Joe Biden and running mate Kamala Harris as socialists who will lead the United States toward a leftist extreme. 'Joe Biden is saying he owns the socialism and extremism in his party, that he owns it,' Trump said in a Sept. 30 Minnesota rally. 'Socialism is the mainstream of the Biden campaign and it's not the mainstream of America. Remember I said, we will never have a socialist country,' Trump said at an August rally in Arizona. Biden and Harris reject Trump's socialism label. 'I beat the socialist,' Biden said in a TV interview in Wisconsin, a reference to Democratic primary competitor Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who calls himself a democratic socialist. 'That's how I got elected. That's how I got the nomination. Do I look like a socialist? Look at my career - my whole career. I am not a socialist.' Republicans have used the socialist label to attack Democrats and their policies for decades, including over programs such as Medicare or Social Security that ultimately became popular on both sides of the aisle. We saw a ramping up of such attacks in 2018, especially in Florida. Socialism is a dirty word in the voter-rich battleground of South Florida, where many residents fled oppressive regimes in Cuba and Venezuela and literally argue about the socialism and communism label in the streets of Miami. We wanted to cut through the noise and examine the facts. The Trump campaign argues that Biden's proposals to expand health care, offer free college tuition to some students and promote clean energy are evidence of socialist leanings. Experts say this characterization is wrong. 'Strictly speaking, socialism (like communism) refers to complete public ownership of all means of production,' said Daniel Shaviro, an expert on taxation at New York University. 'Nothing in Biden's platform is remotely in that territory.' Professor Ted Henken, an expert on Cuba at New York's Baruch College, agreed. 'Joe Biden's long record in Congress shows him to be exactly what he claims, a moderate Democrat,' Henken said. 'Harris is a bit more liberal or progressive, but far from being a socialist either.' What is socialism? The most narrow definition of socialism refers to complete government ownership of production. When Sanders uses the term, he is referring to the generous social insurance programs available in some European countries, along with high tax rates, if needed, to pay for education, health care or other programs. That's not what Biden's platform calls for. Biden's economic plan emphasizes job creation in manufacturing, infrastructure and health care, but he has not called for the government to take over those industries. Biden would reverse Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, and he supports a $15-an-hour national minimum wage. That doesn't amount to socialism, either. While Harris signed on to Senate bills supporting Medicare for All, which would put the government in charge of paying for health care, it's Biden who is at the top of the ticket. He proposes to improve the Affordable Care Act, rather than revamp the health care system. He supports allowing Americans the choice of a public option for government-backed health insurance, in addition to the private insurance options. Those eligible for Medicaid could enroll in the public option at reduced cost. Socialized medicine generally refers to a system in which the government pays all the bills, owns the health facilities and employs the health professionals who work there. The ACA, by contrast, has a large market component, allowing people to buy insurance on the marketplace from private insurance companies. (Trump supports litigation to undo the ACA.) Biden hasn't embraced Medicare for All, but experts told us that Medicare for All as proposed doesn't constitute socialism either. 'Medicare for All is a proposal that would make U.S. health care comparable to that in other countries with capitalist economies, with a primary role for government with regard to social welfare,' said Martin Gaynor, Carnegie Mellon University professor of economics and public policy. 'I wouldn't call that socialism.' After clinching the nomination, Biden shifted to the left on environmental, health care and racial justice issues, but his economic platform is still far from being socialist, Henken said. (Henken recently started volunteering for a Democratic Party hotline that answers voters' questions about when and where to vote. It's open to all voters, regardless of affiliation.) 'It is much more solidly in line with America's tradition of Keynesian economics, where the government increases spending and keeps taxes low (for all but the very rich) to jump-start the private sector - which is understood to be the best motor for growth, innovation and job creation,' Henken said. Antony Davies, a free-market economist at Duquesne University, said Biden's proposals such as improving the ACA, reinstating environmental protections and investing tax dollars in infrastructure are not strictly speaking socialist. 'Some of the policies are heavily regulatory, in that they would have politicians and bureaucrats weigh in on what products Americans will have, but the policies do not call for the government to take ownership of housing, infrastructure, or to directly employ workers,' he said. The real problem, Davies said, lies in thinking in binary terms: socialism vs. capitalism. 'There is no example of a pure socialist or a pure capitalist economy. All economies are located on a continuum somewhere between the two extremes,' he said. 'Many of Biden's policies do move the United States further toward the socialist end of the continuum, in that the policies replace voluntary decision-making with coercive decision-making. But some, like some of his proposed environmental protections, actually move the United States further away from the socialist end of the continuum by reinforcing voluntary decision-making.' Trump campaign points to endorsements To back its claim that Biden is a socialist, the Trump campaign pointed to support for Biden from the chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, and the Working Families Party, as well as support from U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. (The Biden campaign noted that the Democratic Socialists of America declined to endorse him.) But those endorsements or support don't necessarily mean they agree with Biden on ideology, or that Biden subscribes to their ideologies. It means they prefer Biden to Trump. Biden has also been endorsed by the Lincoln Project, a group of anti-Trump Republicans, as well as some Republican national security officials. But Biden is no Republican. 'Trump recently received the endorsement of the Taliban,' said Philip J. Williams, dean of the College of Liberal Arts at California Polytechnic State University and an expert on Latin American politics. 'Does that make him a Taliban?' (The Trump campaign said it rejected that endorsement.) The Biden-Sanders unity platform The Trump campaign also pointed to the Biden-Sanders unity platform document, developed by representatives of the two Democratic candidates in an effort to consolidate support after the primary contest. The document proposes expanding some social programs beyond what the United States currently provides, such as free-tuition at public colleges for students whose families earn less than $125,000 a year and more ambitious goals on renewable energy. But it does not propose a government takeover of private industry. It also omits some liberal wish-list programs such as Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. The Trump campaign also pointed to a New York Times article about Biden's climate plan, which the campaign said would increase government control over the energy industry. Biden's energy plan isn't socialism, Williams said. 'It does not call for a government takeover of the energy industry - instead it proposes various carrots and sticks to move the private energy industry in the direction of renewable energy,' Williams said. Trump links Democrats to foreign socialists Trump sometimes tries to link the Democrats' platform to socialism in Venezuela or communism in Cuba, seeking to capitalize on opposition to those regimes in Florida's large emigre communities But Trump's suggestion that Biden or the Democrats want to turn America into Cuba or Venezuela is ridiculous, Williams said. 'There is no evidence based on Biden's proposed policies or his background that he is a socialist or even sympathetic to socialist policies,' Williams said. Biden has called Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro a 'tyrant' and has criticized the Cuban regime's abusive record on human rights. Eduardo A. Gamarra, a political scientist at Florida International University, said that the Democrats' agenda doesn't call for creating a one-party state which has existed for decades in Cuba and Venezuela. The Democrats also don't call for nationalizing key industries or private universities or creating a single media outlet as a government mouthpiece. RELATED: Scott's misleading attack on Biden about Castro, Maduro
|
Our ruling Trump says Biden is a socialist. Socialism refers to a government takeover of industry, and Biden has not called for that. Experts say his positions on health care, energy and other areas are those of a moderate Democrat, not a socialist. There's no support for the claim that Biden wants the U.S. to be like Cuba or Venezuela. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"110006-proof-23-75c70217b894bbd811b5bc0bbd95cf76.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden is a socialist.
|
Contradiction
|
In bus tours across Florida, on social media and on TV airwaves, in English and in Spanish, President Donald Trump and his allies have portrayed Joe Biden and running mate Kamala Harris as socialists who will lead the United States toward a leftist extreme. 'Joe Biden is saying he owns the socialism and extremism in his party, that he owns it,' Trump said in a Sept. 30 Minnesota rally. 'Socialism is the mainstream of the Biden campaign and it's not the mainstream of America. Remember I said, we will never have a socialist country,' Trump said at an August rally in Arizona. Biden and Harris reject Trump's socialism label. 'I beat the socialist,' Biden said in a TV interview in Wisconsin, a reference to Democratic primary competitor Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who calls himself a democratic socialist. 'That's how I got elected. That's how I got the nomination. Do I look like a socialist? Look at my career - my whole career. I am not a socialist.' Republicans have used the socialist label to attack Democrats and their policies for decades, including over programs such as Medicare or Social Security that ultimately became popular on both sides of the aisle. We saw a ramping up of such attacks in 2018, especially in Florida. Socialism is a dirty word in the voter-rich battleground of South Florida, where many residents fled oppressive regimes in Cuba and Venezuela and literally argue about the socialism and communism label in the streets of Miami. We wanted to cut through the noise and examine the facts. The Trump campaign argues that Biden's proposals to expand health care, offer free college tuition to some students and promote clean energy are evidence of socialist leanings. Experts say this characterization is wrong. 'Strictly speaking, socialism (like communism) refers to complete public ownership of all means of production,' said Daniel Shaviro, an expert on taxation at New York University. 'Nothing in Biden's platform is remotely in that territory.' Professor Ted Henken, an expert on Cuba at New York's Baruch College, agreed. 'Joe Biden's long record in Congress shows him to be exactly what he claims, a moderate Democrat,' Henken said. 'Harris is a bit more liberal or progressive, but far from being a socialist either.' What is socialism? The most narrow definition of socialism refers to complete government ownership of production. When Sanders uses the term, he is referring to the generous social insurance programs available in some European countries, along with high tax rates, if needed, to pay for education, health care or other programs. That's not what Biden's platform calls for. Biden's economic plan emphasizes job creation in manufacturing, infrastructure and health care, but he has not called for the government to take over those industries. Biden would reverse Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, and he supports a $15-an-hour national minimum wage. That doesn't amount to socialism, either. While Harris signed on to Senate bills supporting Medicare for All, which would put the government in charge of paying for health care, it's Biden who is at the top of the ticket. He proposes to improve the Affordable Care Act, rather than revamp the health care system. He supports allowing Americans the choice of a public option for government-backed health insurance, in addition to the private insurance options. Those eligible for Medicaid could enroll in the public option at reduced cost. Socialized medicine generally refers to a system in which the government pays all the bills, owns the health facilities and employs the health professionals who work there. The ACA, by contrast, has a large market component, allowing people to buy insurance on the marketplace from private insurance companies. (Trump supports litigation to undo the ACA.) Biden hasn't embraced Medicare for All, but experts told us that Medicare for All as proposed doesn't constitute socialism either. 'Medicare for All is a proposal that would make U.S. health care comparable to that in other countries with capitalist economies, with a primary role for government with regard to social welfare,' said Martin Gaynor, Carnegie Mellon University professor of economics and public policy. 'I wouldn't call that socialism.' After clinching the nomination, Biden shifted to the left on environmental, health care and racial justice issues, but his economic platform is still far from being socialist, Henken said. (Henken recently started volunteering for a Democratic Party hotline that answers voters' questions about when and where to vote. It's open to all voters, regardless of affiliation.) 'It is much more solidly in line with America's tradition of Keynesian economics, where the government increases spending and keeps taxes low (for all but the very rich) to jump-start the private sector - which is understood to be the best motor for growth, innovation and job creation,' Henken said. Antony Davies, a free-market economist at Duquesne University, said Biden's proposals such as improving the ACA, reinstating environmental protections and investing tax dollars in infrastructure are not strictly speaking socialist. 'Some of the policies are heavily regulatory, in that they would have politicians and bureaucrats weigh in on what products Americans will have, but the policies do not call for the government to take ownership of housing, infrastructure, or to directly employ workers,' he said. The real problem, Davies said, lies in thinking in binary terms: socialism vs. capitalism. 'There is no example of a pure socialist or a pure capitalist economy. All economies are located on a continuum somewhere between the two extremes,' he said. 'Many of Biden's policies do move the United States further toward the socialist end of the continuum, in that the policies replace voluntary decision-making with coercive decision-making. But some, like some of his proposed environmental protections, actually move the United States further away from the socialist end of the continuum by reinforcing voluntary decision-making.' Trump campaign points to endorsements To back its claim that Biden is a socialist, the Trump campaign pointed to support for Biden from the chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, and the Working Families Party, as well as support from U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. (The Biden campaign noted that the Democratic Socialists of America declined to endorse him.) But those endorsements or support don't necessarily mean they agree with Biden on ideology, or that Biden subscribes to their ideologies. It means they prefer Biden to Trump. Biden has also been endorsed by the Lincoln Project, a group of anti-Trump Republicans, as well as some Republican national security officials. But Biden is no Republican. 'Trump recently received the endorsement of the Taliban,' said Philip J. Williams, dean of the College of Liberal Arts at California Polytechnic State University and an expert on Latin American politics. 'Does that make him a Taliban?' (The Trump campaign said it rejected that endorsement.) The Biden-Sanders unity platform The Trump campaign also pointed to the Biden-Sanders unity platform document, developed by representatives of the two Democratic candidates in an effort to consolidate support after the primary contest. The document proposes expanding some social programs beyond what the United States currently provides, such as free-tuition at public colleges for students whose families earn less than $125,000 a year and more ambitious goals on renewable energy. But it does not propose a government takeover of private industry. It also omits some liberal wish-list programs such as Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. The Trump campaign also pointed to a New York Times article about Biden's climate plan, which the campaign said would increase government control over the energy industry. Biden's energy plan isn't socialism, Williams said. 'It does not call for a government takeover of the energy industry - instead it proposes various carrots and sticks to move the private energy industry in the direction of renewable energy,' Williams said. Trump links Democrats to foreign socialists Trump sometimes tries to link the Democrats' platform to socialism in Venezuela or communism in Cuba, seeking to capitalize on opposition to those regimes in Florida's large emigre communities But Trump's suggestion that Biden or the Democrats want to turn America into Cuba or Venezuela is ridiculous, Williams said. 'There is no evidence based on Biden's proposed policies or his background that he is a socialist or even sympathetic to socialist policies,' Williams said. Biden has called Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro a 'tyrant' and has criticized the Cuban regime's abusive record on human rights. Eduardo A. Gamarra, a political scientist at Florida International University, said that the Democrats' agenda doesn't call for creating a one-party state which has existed for decades in Cuba and Venezuela. The Democrats also don't call for nationalizing key industries or private universities or creating a single media outlet as a government mouthpiece. RELATED: Scott's misleading attack on Biden about Castro, Maduro
|
Our ruling Trump says Biden is a socialist. Socialism refers to a government takeover of industry, and Biden has not called for that. Experts say his positions on health care, energy and other areas are those of a moderate Democrat, not a socialist. There's no support for the claim that Biden wants the U.S. to be like Cuba or Venezuela. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"110006-proof-23-75c70217b894bbd811b5bc0bbd95cf76.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden is a socialist.
|
Contradiction
|
In bus tours across Florida, on social media and on TV airwaves, in English and in Spanish, President Donald Trump and his allies have portrayed Joe Biden and running mate Kamala Harris as socialists who will lead the United States toward a leftist extreme. 'Joe Biden is saying he owns the socialism and extremism in his party, that he owns it,' Trump said in a Sept. 30 Minnesota rally. 'Socialism is the mainstream of the Biden campaign and it's not the mainstream of America. Remember I said, we will never have a socialist country,' Trump said at an August rally in Arizona. Biden and Harris reject Trump's socialism label. 'I beat the socialist,' Biden said in a TV interview in Wisconsin, a reference to Democratic primary competitor Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who calls himself a democratic socialist. 'That's how I got elected. That's how I got the nomination. Do I look like a socialist? Look at my career - my whole career. I am not a socialist.' Republicans have used the socialist label to attack Democrats and their policies for decades, including over programs such as Medicare or Social Security that ultimately became popular on both sides of the aisle. We saw a ramping up of such attacks in 2018, especially in Florida. Socialism is a dirty word in the voter-rich battleground of South Florida, where many residents fled oppressive regimes in Cuba and Venezuela and literally argue about the socialism and communism label in the streets of Miami. We wanted to cut through the noise and examine the facts. The Trump campaign argues that Biden's proposals to expand health care, offer free college tuition to some students and promote clean energy are evidence of socialist leanings. Experts say this characterization is wrong. 'Strictly speaking, socialism (like communism) refers to complete public ownership of all means of production,' said Daniel Shaviro, an expert on taxation at New York University. 'Nothing in Biden's platform is remotely in that territory.' Professor Ted Henken, an expert on Cuba at New York's Baruch College, agreed. 'Joe Biden's long record in Congress shows him to be exactly what he claims, a moderate Democrat,' Henken said. 'Harris is a bit more liberal or progressive, but far from being a socialist either.' What is socialism? The most narrow definition of socialism refers to complete government ownership of production. When Sanders uses the term, he is referring to the generous social insurance programs available in some European countries, along with high tax rates, if needed, to pay for education, health care or other programs. That's not what Biden's platform calls for. Biden's economic plan emphasizes job creation in manufacturing, infrastructure and health care, but he has not called for the government to take over those industries. Biden would reverse Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, and he supports a $15-an-hour national minimum wage. That doesn't amount to socialism, either. While Harris signed on to Senate bills supporting Medicare for All, which would put the government in charge of paying for health care, it's Biden who is at the top of the ticket. He proposes to improve the Affordable Care Act, rather than revamp the health care system. He supports allowing Americans the choice of a public option for government-backed health insurance, in addition to the private insurance options. Those eligible for Medicaid could enroll in the public option at reduced cost. Socialized medicine generally refers to a system in which the government pays all the bills, owns the health facilities and employs the health professionals who work there. The ACA, by contrast, has a large market component, allowing people to buy insurance on the marketplace from private insurance companies. (Trump supports litigation to undo the ACA.) Biden hasn't embraced Medicare for All, but experts told us that Medicare for All as proposed doesn't constitute socialism either. 'Medicare for All is a proposal that would make U.S. health care comparable to that in other countries with capitalist economies, with a primary role for government with regard to social welfare,' said Martin Gaynor, Carnegie Mellon University professor of economics and public policy. 'I wouldn't call that socialism.' After clinching the nomination, Biden shifted to the left on environmental, health care and racial justice issues, but his economic platform is still far from being socialist, Henken said. (Henken recently started volunteering for a Democratic Party hotline that answers voters' questions about when and where to vote. It's open to all voters, regardless of affiliation.) 'It is much more solidly in line with America's tradition of Keynesian economics, where the government increases spending and keeps taxes low (for all but the very rich) to jump-start the private sector - which is understood to be the best motor for growth, innovation and job creation,' Henken said. Antony Davies, a free-market economist at Duquesne University, said Biden's proposals such as improving the ACA, reinstating environmental protections and investing tax dollars in infrastructure are not strictly speaking socialist. 'Some of the policies are heavily regulatory, in that they would have politicians and bureaucrats weigh in on what products Americans will have, but the policies do not call for the government to take ownership of housing, infrastructure, or to directly employ workers,' he said. The real problem, Davies said, lies in thinking in binary terms: socialism vs. capitalism. 'There is no example of a pure socialist or a pure capitalist economy. All economies are located on a continuum somewhere between the two extremes,' he said. 'Many of Biden's policies do move the United States further toward the socialist end of the continuum, in that the policies replace voluntary decision-making with coercive decision-making. But some, like some of his proposed environmental protections, actually move the United States further away from the socialist end of the continuum by reinforcing voluntary decision-making.' Trump campaign points to endorsements To back its claim that Biden is a socialist, the Trump campaign pointed to support for Biden from the chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, and the Working Families Party, as well as support from U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. (The Biden campaign noted that the Democratic Socialists of America declined to endorse him.) But those endorsements or support don't necessarily mean they agree with Biden on ideology, or that Biden subscribes to their ideologies. It means they prefer Biden to Trump. Biden has also been endorsed by the Lincoln Project, a group of anti-Trump Republicans, as well as some Republican national security officials. But Biden is no Republican. 'Trump recently received the endorsement of the Taliban,' said Philip J. Williams, dean of the College of Liberal Arts at California Polytechnic State University and an expert on Latin American politics. 'Does that make him a Taliban?' (The Trump campaign said it rejected that endorsement.) The Biden-Sanders unity platform The Trump campaign also pointed to the Biden-Sanders unity platform document, developed by representatives of the two Democratic candidates in an effort to consolidate support after the primary contest. The document proposes expanding some social programs beyond what the United States currently provides, such as free-tuition at public colleges for students whose families earn less than $125,000 a year and more ambitious goals on renewable energy. But it does not propose a government takeover of private industry. It also omits some liberal wish-list programs such as Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. The Trump campaign also pointed to a New York Times article about Biden's climate plan, which the campaign said would increase government control over the energy industry. Biden's energy plan isn't socialism, Williams said. 'It does not call for a government takeover of the energy industry - instead it proposes various carrots and sticks to move the private energy industry in the direction of renewable energy,' Williams said. Trump links Democrats to foreign socialists Trump sometimes tries to link the Democrats' platform to socialism in Venezuela or communism in Cuba, seeking to capitalize on opposition to those regimes in Florida's large emigre communities But Trump's suggestion that Biden or the Democrats want to turn America into Cuba or Venezuela is ridiculous, Williams said. 'There is no evidence based on Biden's proposed policies or his background that he is a socialist or even sympathetic to socialist policies,' Williams said. Biden has called Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro a 'tyrant' and has criticized the Cuban regime's abusive record on human rights. Eduardo A. Gamarra, a political scientist at Florida International University, said that the Democrats' agenda doesn't call for creating a one-party state which has existed for decades in Cuba and Venezuela. The Democrats also don't call for nationalizing key industries or private universities or creating a single media outlet as a government mouthpiece. RELATED: Scott's misleading attack on Biden about Castro, Maduro
|
Our ruling Trump says Biden is a socialist. Socialism refers to a government takeover of industry, and Biden has not called for that. Experts say his positions on health care, energy and other areas are those of a moderate Democrat, not a socialist. There's no support for the claim that Biden wants the U.S. to be like Cuba or Venezuela. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"110006-proof-23-75c70217b894bbd811b5bc0bbd95cf76.jpg"
] |
'More fraud in New Jersey's election uncovered - voting machines would not allow citizens to vote for Republican governor candidate.
|
Contradiction
|
A viral video of a voter in New Jersey struggling with a touch screen voting machine has spread widely across social media with claims that the machine blocked the Republican gubernatorial candidate's name from being chosen. 'Nothing to SEE here!!! Move along!' one Facebook caption of the 56-second clip reads. The conservative Gateway Pundit website wrote an article about the video with this headline: 'More fraud in New Jersey's election uncovered - voting machines would not allow citizens to vote for Republican governor candidate.' In the video, a voter tries to cast her vote for Republican Jack Ciattarelli several times without success. But when she touches the name of Ciatarelli's Democratic opponent, Gov. Phil Murphy, the machine appears to work. (It also appeared to work when she touched the name of a Republican candidate for state Senate listed below Ciattarelli). After she asks for help, a poll worker can be heard telling her to touch the center of the name and hold it. This also doesn't seem to work. The video appears to be authentic. Nevertheless, touchscreen voting machines are known to malfunction on an isolated basis. That is not evidence of fraud, though, and we couldn't find additional examples of similar malfunctions from this election. The posts and stories were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The video shows that the malfunction occurred in District 11 in Middletown Township, which is located in Monmouth County. The county's superintendent of elections, Mary DeSarno, told PolitiFact that her office is aware of the video and hasn't heard from the voter or any of the poll workers. She said she encourages the voter to contact her office so they can look into the issue further. 'It is important to note that with the new voting machines, voters have the ability to double check their votes two times before casting their ballots, which is a safeguard to protect the integrity of the vote,' DeSarno added. The Gateway Pundit story shared another video that appeared to show a similar problem in Bergen County, the largest in the state. Debra M. Francica, Bergen's superintendent of elections, acknowledged that a few voters in two locations had trouble pressing their selection on the county's older voting machines for a particular candidate, but said technicians tested the machines and found no issues. Francica told PolitiFact that the technicians advised poll workers to tell voters to press harder with their thumb or a stylus to make their choices. 'Our office is not aware of any voter disenfranchisement,' she said in an email. Ciattarelli defeated Murphy in Monmouth County by about 43,000 votes, garnering 58.9%. In Bergen, Murphy beat Ciattarelli by about 14,000 votes, winning 52.4%. The videos show two different types of voting machines, and we don't know exactly what caused the problem. In the past, election officials have said that these types of errors often occur when the machine is out of calibration. Particularly with older voting machines, like the ones used in Bergen County, if the touch screen and the digital display that lies just underneath it aren't properly aligned, the machine is considered out of calibration. Anything from temperature changes, rough handling, or even just the passage of time can cause screens to lose calibration, election officials previously told us, and some machines need frequent, manual calibration in order to keep them working properly.
|
Our ruling Videos of voting machine malfunctions in New Jersey are being shared online with the claim that they are proof of election fraud. It does appear that there were issues with some of the touchscreen machines. But none of the videos prove that voters were denied the ability to cast a vote for the candidate of their choice, or that the machines didn't end up working correctly at a different time. The claim has an element of truth, because the video appears authentic. But it is not proof of fraud. We rate the claim Mostly False.
|
[] |
'More fraud in New Jersey's election uncovered - voting machines would not allow citizens to vote for Republican governor candidate.
|
Contradiction
|
A viral video of a voter in New Jersey struggling with a touch screen voting machine has spread widely across social media with claims that the machine blocked the Republican gubernatorial candidate's name from being chosen. 'Nothing to SEE here!!! Move along!' one Facebook caption of the 56-second clip reads. The conservative Gateway Pundit website wrote an article about the video with this headline: 'More fraud in New Jersey's election uncovered - voting machines would not allow citizens to vote for Republican governor candidate.' In the video, a voter tries to cast her vote for Republican Jack Ciattarelli several times without success. But when she touches the name of Ciatarelli's Democratic opponent, Gov. Phil Murphy, the machine appears to work. (It also appeared to work when she touched the name of a Republican candidate for state Senate listed below Ciattarelli). After she asks for help, a poll worker can be heard telling her to touch the center of the name and hold it. This also doesn't seem to work. The video appears to be authentic. Nevertheless, touchscreen voting machines are known to malfunction on an isolated basis. That is not evidence of fraud, though, and we couldn't find additional examples of similar malfunctions from this election. The posts and stories were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The video shows that the malfunction occurred in District 11 in Middletown Township, which is located in Monmouth County. The county's superintendent of elections, Mary DeSarno, told PolitiFact that her office is aware of the video and hasn't heard from the voter or any of the poll workers. She said she encourages the voter to contact her office so they can look into the issue further. 'It is important to note that with the new voting machines, voters have the ability to double check their votes two times before casting their ballots, which is a safeguard to protect the integrity of the vote,' DeSarno added. The Gateway Pundit story shared another video that appeared to show a similar problem in Bergen County, the largest in the state. Debra M. Francica, Bergen's superintendent of elections, acknowledged that a few voters in two locations had trouble pressing their selection on the county's older voting machines for a particular candidate, but said technicians tested the machines and found no issues. Francica told PolitiFact that the technicians advised poll workers to tell voters to press harder with their thumb or a stylus to make their choices. 'Our office is not aware of any voter disenfranchisement,' she said in an email. Ciattarelli defeated Murphy in Monmouth County by about 43,000 votes, garnering 58.9%. In Bergen, Murphy beat Ciattarelli by about 14,000 votes, winning 52.4%. The videos show two different types of voting machines, and we don't know exactly what caused the problem. In the past, election officials have said that these types of errors often occur when the machine is out of calibration. Particularly with older voting machines, like the ones used in Bergen County, if the touch screen and the digital display that lies just underneath it aren't properly aligned, the machine is considered out of calibration. Anything from temperature changes, rough handling, or even just the passage of time can cause screens to lose calibration, election officials previously told us, and some machines need frequent, manual calibration in order to keep them working properly.
|
Our ruling Videos of voting machine malfunctions in New Jersey are being shared online with the claim that they are proof of election fraud. It does appear that there were issues with some of the touchscreen machines. But none of the videos prove that voters were denied the ability to cast a vote for the candidate of their choice, or that the machines didn't end up working correctly at a different time. The claim has an element of truth, because the video appears authentic. But it is not proof of fraud. We rate the claim Mostly False.
|
[] |
Says the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act gives members of Congress a pay increase.
|
Contradiction
|
The $2 trillion economic relief package that President Donald Trump signed March 27 is aimed at giving aid to Americans affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. But some widely shared posts on Facebook claim the legislation helps Congress more than workers. While the stimulus, officially known as the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, will dole out $1,200 checks to every adult making less than $75,000 per year, a March 26 post says the cash is pennies compared to the pay raise that legislators are giving themselves. 'Congress wants $25 million for raises. That's $46,700 each,' the text post reads. 'Now who's thinking of you.' Another post, published March 20, asserts that the House of Representatives voted to award its members an extra $8,000 per month instead of giving aid to senior citizens. A March 25 post is even more specific, claiming the congressional pay raise is on page 134 of the stimulus. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Collectively, they've been shared more than 140,000 times. (Screenshot from Facebook) The CARES Act is the largest economic relief bill in U.S. history. The legislation offers economic support in the form of small business loans, tax cuts, and health-related spending. In addition to sending cash to everyday Americans, the law will give aid to the airline industry, which has been hard-hit by the coronavirus pandemic. We've seen a lot of misinformation about the stimulus, so we wanted to look into these Facebook posts to see if there's any truth to them. While the CARES Act does allocate money to some Capitol employees, there is nothing in the legislation that gives a pay raise to members of Congress. Several fact-checkers have debunked the claim. 'The CARES Act does not provide either a pay raise or any funding for Member salaries,' said Evan Hollander, communications director for the House Appropriations Committee, in an email. 'Likewise, no version of the legislation - House or Senate - ever included provisions for a Member pay raise or funding for salaries.' We checked page 134 of the stimulus package as it appeared on March 25, when one of the Facebook posts was published. It contains information about grants given to states that have 'short-time compensation programs,' which are alternatives to layoffs for employers that experience a reduction in available work. Under the programs, employees who have their hours cut are permitted to collect a percentage of unemployment benefits to make up for lost wages. RELATED: The Senate stimulus bill: What's in it for you The March 25 version of the CARES Act said nothing about pay increases for Congress. Neither does the final version of the stimulus. Hollander said there is $25 million in the stimulus to 'support the House's capability to telework,' including equipment purchases and improvements to the network. There is also money for reimbursing the staff of the House Child Care Center, covering the costs of food service contracts and paying the House sergeant-at-arms. Meanwhile, the Senate is slated to get $10 million from the stimulus. $1 million will go to the sergeant-at-arms to remain available for coronavirus response while $9 million will be reserved for 'miscellaneous items,' including reimbursement for workers at the Senate Employee Child Care Center. The Facebook posts are inaccurate and make a ridiculous claim. We rate them Pants on Fire!
|
The Facebook posts are inaccurate and make a ridiculous claim. We rate them Pants on Fire!
|
[
"110019-proof-03-75acc482f5b16b50f2e09fb0e8aa2363.jpg",
"110019-proof-33-Screen_Shot_2020-03-30_at_3.53.11_PM.jpg"
] |
Says the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act gives members of Congress a pay increase.
|
Contradiction
|
The $2 trillion economic relief package that President Donald Trump signed March 27 is aimed at giving aid to Americans affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. But some widely shared posts on Facebook claim the legislation helps Congress more than workers. While the stimulus, officially known as the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, will dole out $1,200 checks to every adult making less than $75,000 per year, a March 26 post says the cash is pennies compared to the pay raise that legislators are giving themselves. 'Congress wants $25 million for raises. That's $46,700 each,' the text post reads. 'Now who's thinking of you.' Another post, published March 20, asserts that the House of Representatives voted to award its members an extra $8,000 per month instead of giving aid to senior citizens. A March 25 post is even more specific, claiming the congressional pay raise is on page 134 of the stimulus. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Collectively, they've been shared more than 140,000 times. (Screenshot from Facebook) The CARES Act is the largest economic relief bill in U.S. history. The legislation offers economic support in the form of small business loans, tax cuts, and health-related spending. In addition to sending cash to everyday Americans, the law will give aid to the airline industry, which has been hard-hit by the coronavirus pandemic. We've seen a lot of misinformation about the stimulus, so we wanted to look into these Facebook posts to see if there's any truth to them. While the CARES Act does allocate money to some Capitol employees, there is nothing in the legislation that gives a pay raise to members of Congress. Several fact-checkers have debunked the claim. 'The CARES Act does not provide either a pay raise or any funding for Member salaries,' said Evan Hollander, communications director for the House Appropriations Committee, in an email. 'Likewise, no version of the legislation - House or Senate - ever included provisions for a Member pay raise or funding for salaries.' We checked page 134 of the stimulus package as it appeared on March 25, when one of the Facebook posts was published. It contains information about grants given to states that have 'short-time compensation programs,' which are alternatives to layoffs for employers that experience a reduction in available work. Under the programs, employees who have their hours cut are permitted to collect a percentage of unemployment benefits to make up for lost wages. RELATED: The Senate stimulus bill: What's in it for you The March 25 version of the CARES Act said nothing about pay increases for Congress. Neither does the final version of the stimulus. Hollander said there is $25 million in the stimulus to 'support the House's capability to telework,' including equipment purchases and improvements to the network. There is also money for reimbursing the staff of the House Child Care Center, covering the costs of food service contracts and paying the House sergeant-at-arms. Meanwhile, the Senate is slated to get $10 million from the stimulus. $1 million will go to the sergeant-at-arms to remain available for coronavirus response while $9 million will be reserved for 'miscellaneous items,' including reimbursement for workers at the Senate Employee Child Care Center. The Facebook posts are inaccurate and make a ridiculous claim. We rate them Pants on Fire!
|
The Facebook posts are inaccurate and make a ridiculous claim. We rate them Pants on Fire!
|
[
"110019-proof-03-75acc482f5b16b50f2e09fb0e8aa2363.jpg",
"110019-proof-33-Screen_Shot_2020-03-30_at_3.53.11_PM.jpg"
] |
'White busses marked 'Soros Riot Dance Squad' spotted in Michigan: It's official, the riots are staged.
|
Contradiction
|
We've debunked claims that philanthropist George Soros is supplying rocks for rioters in Los Angeles and 'funding the chaos' in Minneapolis. A recent blog post is in this same genre of misinformation, and wrongly suggests that demonstrations over George Floyd's death in police custody are part of a larger political plot involving Soros. 'White busses marked 'Soros Riot Dance Squad' spotted in Michigan: It's official, the riots are staged,' reads the headline on a June 2 Intellihub story. 'The invisible man behind the curtain has now become visible.' The post goes on to say that the buses 'show the current Black Lives Matter/ANTIFA-sponsored unrest is most likely without a shadow of a doubt part of a much larger George Soros, Barack Obama, Democratic National Committee-backed plan aimed at taking back the Office of the President once and for all.' The proof, the post says, is a photo published on Facebook. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The photo is a fake. We reached out to Open Society Foundations, the philanthropic organization founded by Soros. The group told PolitiFact that no 'Soros Riot Dance Squad' buses exist. Next we called Golden Limousine International, a transportation company in Ann Arbor, Mich., mentioned in an Associated Press story about the post. Carol Bell, the company's director of safety, told us that the buses in the image belong to Golden Limousine. Every day, she said, they're used as shuttles for Amazon employees, and in the evenings they fuel up at the gas station pictured in the photo. But they don't say 'Soros Riot Dance Squad.' Bell sent us a screenshot of a Facebook post featuring the same photo of the buses without those words added to the image. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
'White busses marked 'Soros Riot Dance Squad' spotted in Michigan: It's official, the riots are staged.
|
Contradiction
|
We've debunked claims that philanthropist George Soros is supplying rocks for rioters in Los Angeles and 'funding the chaos' in Minneapolis. A recent blog post is in this same genre of misinformation, and wrongly suggests that demonstrations over George Floyd's death in police custody are part of a larger political plot involving Soros. 'White busses marked 'Soros Riot Dance Squad' spotted in Michigan: It's official, the riots are staged,' reads the headline on a June 2 Intellihub story. 'The invisible man behind the curtain has now become visible.' The post goes on to say that the buses 'show the current Black Lives Matter/ANTIFA-sponsored unrest is most likely without a shadow of a doubt part of a much larger George Soros, Barack Obama, Democratic National Committee-backed plan aimed at taking back the Office of the President once and for all.' The proof, the post says, is a photo published on Facebook. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The photo is a fake. We reached out to Open Society Foundations, the philanthropic organization founded by Soros. The group told PolitiFact that no 'Soros Riot Dance Squad' buses exist. Next we called Golden Limousine International, a transportation company in Ann Arbor, Mich., mentioned in an Associated Press story about the post. Carol Bell, the company's director of safety, told us that the buses in the image belong to Golden Limousine. Every day, she said, they're used as shuttles for Amazon employees, and in the evenings they fuel up at the gas station pictured in the photo. But they don't say 'Soros Riot Dance Squad.' Bell sent us a screenshot of a Facebook post featuring the same photo of the buses without those words added to the image. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
'Akira' is a 1988 movie about an apocalyptic event taking place months before Tokyo 2020 Olympics, showing the (World Health Organization) advising Japan to postpone the Olympics because of a pandemic risk'
|
Contradiction
|
The coronavirus is a global pandemic, according to the World Health Organization. But it is not one that was predicted by the 1988 Japanese thriller 'Akira.' A viral post circulating on Facebook claims that a conspiracy theory surrounds Katsuhiro Otomo's 32-year-old animated film. ''Akira' is a 1988 movie about an apocalyptic event taking place months before Tokyo 2020 Olympics, showing the WHO advising Japan to postpone the Olympics because of a pandemic risk,' reads the first panel of the image. The post, which had been shared more than 32,000 times as of March 11, makes it seem as though 'Akira' predicted an outbreak like that of the coronavirus decades ago. But almost none of its claims are true. Yes, in 'Akira' the city of Neo Tokyo is scheduled to host the 2020 Olympic games. Neo Tokyo is the name of the city built after Tokyo was destroyed by a massive bomb in 1988 at the very beginning of the film. At one point, a scene identifies that the Olympics' Opening Ceremonies are 147 days away, but the Olympics are only mentioned a handful of times throughout the movie. In fact, the final battle takes place at the Olympic stadium, but the Olympics are not central to the plot of the film. The film, which is available to watch on Hulu in both an English-dubbed version and a Japanese version with English subtitles, is an adaptation of Otomo's popular comic book series. It tells the story of a teenage biker gang that roams the streets looking for trouble, until the group accidentally gets caught up in a secret government experiment that involves children with psychic abilities. The plot is complex and culminates in an epic battle against an overwhelming energy force, but there is no outbreak of disease. The WHO was not present and not mentioned at any point in the film. The topic of canceling the Olympics was never discussed on screen, though when Mashable Southeast Asia looked into this conspiracy, they reported that some of the graffiti on the sign that counts down to the opening ceremonies reads, 'Just cancel it,' in Japanese. Furthermore, the 'apocalyptic event' the post seems to refer to occurs within the first two minutes of the film. A massive explosion destroys Tokyo, but this takes place in 1988 before the film jumps in time to 2019.
|
Our ruling A social media post claims that the film 'Akira' shows 'the WHO advising Japan to postpone the Olympics because of a pandemic risk.' In the film, there is no outbreak of disease, the WHO never makes an appearance, and the Olympics aren't canceled due to a pandemic risk. (It is also worth noting that the WHO has not advised Japan to cancel the 2020 Tokyo Olympics at this point.) We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'Akira' is a 1988 movie about an apocalyptic event taking place months before Tokyo 2020 Olympics, showing the (World Health Organization) advising Japan to postpone the Olympics because of a pandemic risk'
|
Contradiction
|
The coronavirus is a global pandemic, according to the World Health Organization. But it is not one that was predicted by the 1988 Japanese thriller 'Akira.' A viral post circulating on Facebook claims that a conspiracy theory surrounds Katsuhiro Otomo's 32-year-old animated film. ''Akira' is a 1988 movie about an apocalyptic event taking place months before Tokyo 2020 Olympics, showing the WHO advising Japan to postpone the Olympics because of a pandemic risk,' reads the first panel of the image. The post, which had been shared more than 32,000 times as of March 11, makes it seem as though 'Akira' predicted an outbreak like that of the coronavirus decades ago. But almost none of its claims are true. Yes, in 'Akira' the city of Neo Tokyo is scheduled to host the 2020 Olympic games. Neo Tokyo is the name of the city built after Tokyo was destroyed by a massive bomb in 1988 at the very beginning of the film. At one point, a scene identifies that the Olympics' Opening Ceremonies are 147 days away, but the Olympics are only mentioned a handful of times throughout the movie. In fact, the final battle takes place at the Olympic stadium, but the Olympics are not central to the plot of the film. The film, which is available to watch on Hulu in both an English-dubbed version and a Japanese version with English subtitles, is an adaptation of Otomo's popular comic book series. It tells the story of a teenage biker gang that roams the streets looking for trouble, until the group accidentally gets caught up in a secret government experiment that involves children with psychic abilities. The plot is complex and culminates in an epic battle against an overwhelming energy force, but there is no outbreak of disease. The WHO was not present and not mentioned at any point in the film. The topic of canceling the Olympics was never discussed on screen, though when Mashable Southeast Asia looked into this conspiracy, they reported that some of the graffiti on the sign that counts down to the opening ceremonies reads, 'Just cancel it,' in Japanese. Furthermore, the 'apocalyptic event' the post seems to refer to occurs within the first two minutes of the film. A massive explosion destroys Tokyo, but this takes place in 1988 before the film jumps in time to 2019.
|
Our ruling A social media post claims that the film 'Akira' shows 'the WHO advising Japan to postpone the Olympics because of a pandemic risk.' In the film, there is no outbreak of disease, the WHO never makes an appearance, and the Olympics aren't canceled due to a pandemic risk. (It is also worth noting that the WHO has not advised Japan to cancel the 2020 Tokyo Olympics at this point.) We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'Akira' is a 1988 movie about an apocalyptic event taking place months before Tokyo 2020 Olympics, showing the (World Health Organization) advising Japan to postpone the Olympics because of a pandemic risk'
|
Contradiction
|
The coronavirus is a global pandemic, according to the World Health Organization. But it is not one that was predicted by the 1988 Japanese thriller 'Akira.' A viral post circulating on Facebook claims that a conspiracy theory surrounds Katsuhiro Otomo's 32-year-old animated film. ''Akira' is a 1988 movie about an apocalyptic event taking place months before Tokyo 2020 Olympics, showing the WHO advising Japan to postpone the Olympics because of a pandemic risk,' reads the first panel of the image. The post, which had been shared more than 32,000 times as of March 11, makes it seem as though 'Akira' predicted an outbreak like that of the coronavirus decades ago. But almost none of its claims are true. Yes, in 'Akira' the city of Neo Tokyo is scheduled to host the 2020 Olympic games. Neo Tokyo is the name of the city built after Tokyo was destroyed by a massive bomb in 1988 at the very beginning of the film. At one point, a scene identifies that the Olympics' Opening Ceremonies are 147 days away, but the Olympics are only mentioned a handful of times throughout the movie. In fact, the final battle takes place at the Olympic stadium, but the Olympics are not central to the plot of the film. The film, which is available to watch on Hulu in both an English-dubbed version and a Japanese version with English subtitles, is an adaptation of Otomo's popular comic book series. It tells the story of a teenage biker gang that roams the streets looking for trouble, until the group accidentally gets caught up in a secret government experiment that involves children with psychic abilities. The plot is complex and culminates in an epic battle against an overwhelming energy force, but there is no outbreak of disease. The WHO was not present and not mentioned at any point in the film. The topic of canceling the Olympics was never discussed on screen, though when Mashable Southeast Asia looked into this conspiracy, they reported that some of the graffiti on the sign that counts down to the opening ceremonies reads, 'Just cancel it,' in Japanese. Furthermore, the 'apocalyptic event' the post seems to refer to occurs within the first two minutes of the film. A massive explosion destroys Tokyo, but this takes place in 1988 before the film jumps in time to 2019.
|
Our ruling A social media post claims that the film 'Akira' shows 'the WHO advising Japan to postpone the Olympics because of a pandemic risk.' In the film, there is no outbreak of disease, the WHO never makes an appearance, and the Olympics aren't canceled due to a pandemic risk. (It is also worth noting that the WHO has not advised Japan to cancel the 2020 Tokyo Olympics at this point.) We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'Biden's banking nominee demands all 'private bank accounts' be eliminated'
|
Contradiction
|
A claim spreading across social media is that one of President Joe Biden's nominees is demanding an end to all private bank accounts. 'Biden's banking nominee demands all 'private bank accounts' be eliminated,' reads a headline from Neon Nettle, an online news site that has spread misinformation in the past. Versions of this claim have been repeated on other sites. The story claims that Biden's nominee for comptroller of the currency, Saule Omarova, 'vowed to eliminate all private bank accounts and deposits' during a virtual conference in March this year. The comptroller of the currency regulates the federal banking system, including big Wall Street banks. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Omarova did write a lengthy paper exploring the idea of deposit accounts being provided through the Federal Reserve rather than private banks with the advent of digital currency. But claims that she 'demanded' or 'vowed' to do so go too far. Omarova's nomination has faced strong opposition from Republicans, who have questioned her work and childhood in Kazakhstan, when it was part of the former Soviet Union. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., called Omarova's ideas 'radical' and 'socialist.' The Neon Nettle story includes an embedded YouTube video of the virtual conference, called 'Law & Political Economy: Democracy Beyond Neoliberalism.' It was recorded on Jan. 28 and posted in March. Omarova was nominated in September. During her presentation, Omarova, a professor at Cornell Law School, talked about a paper she wrote, and described it as a way to try to re-design the current financial system to connect it more directly to the macro economy, and to make the connection more effective and equitable for everyone. She said the purpose for her proposal was to change the public-private power balance in finance. She called the Federal Reserve's balance sheet the 'crucial lever' in achieving this. Her re-design is a work in progress, she said, and called it 'a complex project.' The Fed can indirectly induce private banks to increase their lending, but cannot force them to do so, she said. Her vision was for the Fed to expand its role, to be a central bank for the people, to have the Fed be at the center of the economy and have it work in a most public interest-oriented way, she said. She said her paper pushed the idea of 'Fed accounts,' or digital dollar deposit accounts for everyone, 'to the limit, and to imagine what would it be like if instead of being just a public option for deposit banking, this would be actually the full transition, in other words, there would be no more private bank deposit accounts, and all of the deposit accounts will be held directly at the Fed.' She called her idea a 'thought experiment.' Later in the conference she said she doesn't 'have complete answers for everything,' and again calls her work a 'thought experiment.' An introduction to her paper said that her work 'envisions the complete migration of demand deposit accounts to the Fed's balance sheet.' She was asked about her paper during a Nov. 18 Senate confirmation hearing, and said that she did not want to end banking as it's known today, and that she was grappling, as an academic, with what it would look like if there were digital currency. She said that she never said that Fed accounts were the only solution, or the best solution, that Congress should take, but that it is one option that Congress should consider. She has also said that changing the way the Fed operates is not under the jurisdiction of the comptroller of the currency. We reached out to a spokesperson for Omarova but did not receive a response. In testimony posted on the Senate Banking Committee website, Omarova said that if confirmed, she would work to make sure that there is a 'fair and competitive market' for small and mid-sized banks.
|
Our ruling Social media posts claim that Omarova, a Biden administration nominee for comptroller of the currency, is demanding that private bank accounts be eliminated. During a January 2021 conference, Omarova said that she wrote a paper exploring what would happen if the Federal Reserve system offered deposit accounts, and private banks did not. She called her paper a thought experiment. She did not demand that this happen. The conference occurred more than six months before she was nominated. The headline and story use words like 'demand,' and 'vowed,' to give the impression that she said that she would eliminate private bank accounts in her position as comptroller of the currency. She has not done that. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"110040-proof-01-58cdd48f756d6dae7a518a6c538220b1.jpg"
] |
'Biden's banking nominee demands all 'private bank accounts' be eliminated'
|
Contradiction
|
A claim spreading across social media is that one of President Joe Biden's nominees is demanding an end to all private bank accounts. 'Biden's banking nominee demands all 'private bank accounts' be eliminated,' reads a headline from Neon Nettle, an online news site that has spread misinformation in the past. Versions of this claim have been repeated on other sites. The story claims that Biden's nominee for comptroller of the currency, Saule Omarova, 'vowed to eliminate all private bank accounts and deposits' during a virtual conference in March this year. The comptroller of the currency regulates the federal banking system, including big Wall Street banks. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Omarova did write a lengthy paper exploring the idea of deposit accounts being provided through the Federal Reserve rather than private banks with the advent of digital currency. But claims that she 'demanded' or 'vowed' to do so go too far. Omarova's nomination has faced strong opposition from Republicans, who have questioned her work and childhood in Kazakhstan, when it was part of the former Soviet Union. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., called Omarova's ideas 'radical' and 'socialist.' The Neon Nettle story includes an embedded YouTube video of the virtual conference, called 'Law & Political Economy: Democracy Beyond Neoliberalism.' It was recorded on Jan. 28 and posted in March. Omarova was nominated in September. During her presentation, Omarova, a professor at Cornell Law School, talked about a paper she wrote, and described it as a way to try to re-design the current financial system to connect it more directly to the macro economy, and to make the connection more effective and equitable for everyone. She said the purpose for her proposal was to change the public-private power balance in finance. She called the Federal Reserve's balance sheet the 'crucial lever' in achieving this. Her re-design is a work in progress, she said, and called it 'a complex project.' The Fed can indirectly induce private banks to increase their lending, but cannot force them to do so, she said. Her vision was for the Fed to expand its role, to be a central bank for the people, to have the Fed be at the center of the economy and have it work in a most public interest-oriented way, she said. She said her paper pushed the idea of 'Fed accounts,' or digital dollar deposit accounts for everyone, 'to the limit, and to imagine what would it be like if instead of being just a public option for deposit banking, this would be actually the full transition, in other words, there would be no more private bank deposit accounts, and all of the deposit accounts will be held directly at the Fed.' She called her idea a 'thought experiment.' Later in the conference she said she doesn't 'have complete answers for everything,' and again calls her work a 'thought experiment.' An introduction to her paper said that her work 'envisions the complete migration of demand deposit accounts to the Fed's balance sheet.' She was asked about her paper during a Nov. 18 Senate confirmation hearing, and said that she did not want to end banking as it's known today, and that she was grappling, as an academic, with what it would look like if there were digital currency. She said that she never said that Fed accounts were the only solution, or the best solution, that Congress should take, but that it is one option that Congress should consider. She has also said that changing the way the Fed operates is not under the jurisdiction of the comptroller of the currency. We reached out to a spokesperson for Omarova but did not receive a response. In testimony posted on the Senate Banking Committee website, Omarova said that if confirmed, she would work to make sure that there is a 'fair and competitive market' for small and mid-sized banks.
|
Our ruling Social media posts claim that Omarova, a Biden administration nominee for comptroller of the currency, is demanding that private bank accounts be eliminated. During a January 2021 conference, Omarova said that she wrote a paper exploring what would happen if the Federal Reserve system offered deposit accounts, and private banks did not. She called her paper a thought experiment. She did not demand that this happen. The conference occurred more than six months before she was nominated. The headline and story use words like 'demand,' and 'vowed,' to give the impression that she said that she would eliminate private bank accounts in her position as comptroller of the currency. She has not done that. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"110040-proof-01-58cdd48f756d6dae7a518a6c538220b1.jpg"
] |
Photos from the movie 'Lilo & Stitch' support child sex-trafficking conspiracy theories.
|
Contradiction
|
In the original version of the 2002 Disney movie 'Lilo & Stitch,' there's a scene in which Lilo hides from her older sister in the dryer during a fight. But earlier this year, TikTok users drew attention to a change in the animated movie, BuzzFeed reported. Lilo is hiding behind a pizza box, not a dryer. On Facebook, posts such as this one are casting this film edit in a nefarious light, using hashtags like #savethechildren and #Pizzagate, a baseless conspiracy theory that emerged in 2016 and claims that children were being abused and tortured at a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C. 'I'm wondering who could explain why a movie I watched as a kid that was made almost 20 YEARS AGO suddenly made its way into Disney+ and his this specific 'modification,'' the post says. 'I'm. Disgusted.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Disney has edited several movies and TV shows that are now streaming on Disney+ 'to make it more palatable to a modern, family-friendly audience,' according to Newsweek, including removing scenes with nudity from 'Splash.' In Lilo & Stitch, the scene was edited to show Lilo hiding behind a pizza box 'in order to prevent children hiding in dryers,' the magazine reported. But the revised scene isn't new. Lilo hid behind a pizza box in the version that was originally released in the United Kingdom in 2002 so that it could have a lower movie rating. TikTok users may just be discovering the edit but it was under discussion as many as six years ago on Reddit. Then, like now, there was no evidence that Disney was nodding to an unfounded theory about a child sex-trafficking ring by including a pizza box in an edited scene. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Photos from the movie 'Lilo & Stitch' support child sex-trafficking conspiracy theories.
|
Contradiction
|
In the original version of the 2002 Disney movie 'Lilo & Stitch,' there's a scene in which Lilo hides from her older sister in the dryer during a fight. But earlier this year, TikTok users drew attention to a change in the animated movie, BuzzFeed reported. Lilo is hiding behind a pizza box, not a dryer. On Facebook, posts such as this one are casting this film edit in a nefarious light, using hashtags like #savethechildren and #Pizzagate, a baseless conspiracy theory that emerged in 2016 and claims that children were being abused and tortured at a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C. 'I'm wondering who could explain why a movie I watched as a kid that was made almost 20 YEARS AGO suddenly made its way into Disney+ and his this specific 'modification,'' the post says. 'I'm. Disgusted.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Disney has edited several movies and TV shows that are now streaming on Disney+ 'to make it more palatable to a modern, family-friendly audience,' according to Newsweek, including removing scenes with nudity from 'Splash.' In Lilo & Stitch, the scene was edited to show Lilo hiding behind a pizza box 'in order to prevent children hiding in dryers,' the magazine reported. But the revised scene isn't new. Lilo hid behind a pizza box in the version that was originally released in the United Kingdom in 2002 so that it could have a lower movie rating. TikTok users may just be discovering the edit but it was under discussion as many as six years ago on Reddit. Then, like now, there was no evidence that Disney was nodding to an unfounded theory about a child sex-trafficking ring by including a pizza box in an edited scene. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Photos from the movie 'Lilo & Stitch' support child sex-trafficking conspiracy theories.
|
Contradiction
|
In the original version of the 2002 Disney movie 'Lilo & Stitch,' there's a scene in which Lilo hides from her older sister in the dryer during a fight. But earlier this year, TikTok users drew attention to a change in the animated movie, BuzzFeed reported. Lilo is hiding behind a pizza box, not a dryer. On Facebook, posts such as this one are casting this film edit in a nefarious light, using hashtags like #savethechildren and #Pizzagate, a baseless conspiracy theory that emerged in 2016 and claims that children were being abused and tortured at a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C. 'I'm wondering who could explain why a movie I watched as a kid that was made almost 20 YEARS AGO suddenly made its way into Disney+ and his this specific 'modification,'' the post says. 'I'm. Disgusted.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Disney has edited several movies and TV shows that are now streaming on Disney+ 'to make it more palatable to a modern, family-friendly audience,' according to Newsweek, including removing scenes with nudity from 'Splash.' In Lilo & Stitch, the scene was edited to show Lilo hiding behind a pizza box 'in order to prevent children hiding in dryers,' the magazine reported. But the revised scene isn't new. Lilo hid behind a pizza box in the version that was originally released in the United Kingdom in 2002 so that it could have a lower movie rating. TikTok users may just be discovering the edit but it was under discussion as many as six years ago on Reddit. Then, like now, there was no evidence that Disney was nodding to an unfounded theory about a child sex-trafficking ring by including a pizza box in an edited scene. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
'Starting Jan. 1 California residents can't take shower, do laundry, poop in toilet and flush on same day.
|
Contradiction
|
The police won't come knocking for Californians who shower and do laundry on the same day, despite what some social media users would have you believe. An old hoax about California's water conservation laws recently resurfaced after a guest on a Los Angeles TV station shared misinformation on air. 'Starting Jan. 1 California residents can't take shower, do laundry, poop in toilet and flush on same day,' said one Facebook post that drew thousands of views to the segment, which was broadcast Dec. 31 on KTLA. 'No really! This is not satire. 55 Gallons per person!' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We debunked the same bogus information about California's conservation efforts in 2018, shortly after then-California Gov. Jerry Brown signed two water-use bills into law. Now, as the misinformation makes a resurgence, we wanted to set the record straight: It was never illegal for Californians to shower and wash laundry on the same day. It still isn't. Old hoax, new outrage The renewed controversy came after KTLA, a local TV station, ran a segment on Dec. 31 about 'unusual and underreported' California laws taking effect in 2020. The network welcomed Southern California lawyer Richard Lee on the show, and an anchor teed up a discussion of two California water laws that Lee said would apply in 2020. Lee's response parroted many of the inaccurate claims we looked at in 2018. 'Doing a load of laundry takes about 40 to 50 gallons of water,' Lee said. 'Taking a shower for about eight minutes takes about 17 gallons of water.' 'Well, there's a limitation on your daily use of water of 55 gallons per day,' he continued. 'So that means, if you are taking a shower and if you're doing a load of laundry, you can't do both without being in violation of the law.' Lee went on to say that violators would be fined '$1,000 per each day that you are in violation,' and more during drought conditions, starting Jan. 1, 2020. 'Wow,' KTLA Morning News anchor Mark Kriski said. 'So all of a sudden, I can smoke marijuana as much as I want, but I can't take a shower. Unbelievable.' Claims that the laws ban showering and laundry on the same day are False. We fact-checked them when they first circulated in 2018. So did Snopes and a number of local news outlets. KTLA replaced the clip on its website with a correction noting that the segment 'included factual errors about two laws going into effect in 2020 regarding water conservation.' But that effort didn't stop the video from spreading to all corners of social media and making headlines on conservative sites such as American Lookout and the Gateway Pundit. A new California law fines you $1,000 if you shower and do 1 load of laundry in the same day I'm not kidding And if the Gov declares a drought, the fine goes up to *$10,000* Does it feel like Green tyranny yet? This is what the Climate Nutjobs want to force on everyone RT! pic.twitter.com/KU0HO6AEd1- Rogan O'Handley 🇺🇸 (@DC_Draino) January 3, 2020 The misinformation spread so far and so fast that the California Department of Water Resources and the Association of California Water Agencies both issued statements debunking it. A representative from KTLA declined to comment, but Lee told us that 'the segment was intended to simply be a quick rundown that each person in California could and should be more mindful on his or her indoor water usage.' 'I was simply stating that 55 gallons per day is the standard for per capita indoor water usage per day set forth by the state legislature,' he said. 'Those fines are to the water agency or provider. That said, there is the question of whether a water agency or provider would pass along this fine to the individual consumer.' Individuals don't have to worry about fines The false claims about California water use center on two bills - Senate Bill 606 and Assembly Bill 1668 - that Brown, the state's former governor, signed into law on May 31, 2018, as California was reeling from a five-year drought that ended in 2017. Broadly speaking, the laws instruct cities, water districts and some larger agricultural water districts to establish strict water budgets. But the new water limits - which kick in starting in 2023, not 2020 - won't target individuals. The legislation requires cities, water districts and large agricultural water districts to come up with budgetary targets for water use by 2022. They will need to meet these targets across their ratepayer bases, with failure to do so resulting in a fine of $1,000 per day or $10,000 per day during drought emergencies. George Kostyrko, director of the office of public affairs for the State Water Resources Control Board, told us the water districts will be guided in their target-setting by a few standards, one of which is the allowance of 55 gallons per capita per day for indoor residential water use - a number that will drop to 50 gallons by 2030. 'These are not individual mandates for homeowners, but actually a task given to each water district to average water consumption use out to hit the goal,' Kostyrko said. 'There is nothing regulating the time a person may shower or when they may or may not do laundry,' added Jim Metropulos, legislative director for state Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, who wrote Assembly Bill 1668. In sum, fines based on consumption will be administered to the water agencies that fail to meet their goals, not to individuals who use too much water in their daily lives. Of course, water districts could theoretically shift those costs to individual water bills. But no resident will be fined $1,000 for doing laundry and showering on a normal day. Senate Bill 606 does give water agencies the ability to fine some individual lawbreakers, the Sacramento Bee noted. But that's only when they violate local water-use limits during an official 'water shortage emergency' that threatens 'human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'Starting Jan. 1 California residents can't take shower, do laundry, poop in toilet and flush on same day.' Legislation in California means that collectively, Californians will soon need to begin using less water in order for water districts to meet the state's efficiency standards. But those limits haven't kicked in yet, and when they do, the government won't start demanding hefty fines from residents who shower and do laundry on the same day. We rate this statement False.
|
[
"110043-proof-20-8fb9de83f5f4c341b793d1b3295ddebb.jpg"
] |
'Starting Jan. 1 California residents can't take shower, do laundry, poop in toilet and flush on same day.
|
Contradiction
|
The police won't come knocking for Californians who shower and do laundry on the same day, despite what some social media users would have you believe. An old hoax about California's water conservation laws recently resurfaced after a guest on a Los Angeles TV station shared misinformation on air. 'Starting Jan. 1 California residents can't take shower, do laundry, poop in toilet and flush on same day,' said one Facebook post that drew thousands of views to the segment, which was broadcast Dec. 31 on KTLA. 'No really! This is not satire. 55 Gallons per person!' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We debunked the same bogus information about California's conservation efforts in 2018, shortly after then-California Gov. Jerry Brown signed two water-use bills into law. Now, as the misinformation makes a resurgence, we wanted to set the record straight: It was never illegal for Californians to shower and wash laundry on the same day. It still isn't. Old hoax, new outrage The renewed controversy came after KTLA, a local TV station, ran a segment on Dec. 31 about 'unusual and underreported' California laws taking effect in 2020. The network welcomed Southern California lawyer Richard Lee on the show, and an anchor teed up a discussion of two California water laws that Lee said would apply in 2020. Lee's response parroted many of the inaccurate claims we looked at in 2018. 'Doing a load of laundry takes about 40 to 50 gallons of water,' Lee said. 'Taking a shower for about eight minutes takes about 17 gallons of water.' 'Well, there's a limitation on your daily use of water of 55 gallons per day,' he continued. 'So that means, if you are taking a shower and if you're doing a load of laundry, you can't do both without being in violation of the law.' Lee went on to say that violators would be fined '$1,000 per each day that you are in violation,' and more during drought conditions, starting Jan. 1, 2020. 'Wow,' KTLA Morning News anchor Mark Kriski said. 'So all of a sudden, I can smoke marijuana as much as I want, but I can't take a shower. Unbelievable.' Claims that the laws ban showering and laundry on the same day are False. We fact-checked them when they first circulated in 2018. So did Snopes and a number of local news outlets. KTLA replaced the clip on its website with a correction noting that the segment 'included factual errors about two laws going into effect in 2020 regarding water conservation.' But that effort didn't stop the video from spreading to all corners of social media and making headlines on conservative sites such as American Lookout and the Gateway Pundit. A new California law fines you $1,000 if you shower and do 1 load of laundry in the same day I'm not kidding And if the Gov declares a drought, the fine goes up to *$10,000* Does it feel like Green tyranny yet? This is what the Climate Nutjobs want to force on everyone RT! pic.twitter.com/KU0HO6AEd1- Rogan O'Handley 🇺🇸 (@DC_Draino) January 3, 2020 The misinformation spread so far and so fast that the California Department of Water Resources and the Association of California Water Agencies both issued statements debunking it. A representative from KTLA declined to comment, but Lee told us that 'the segment was intended to simply be a quick rundown that each person in California could and should be more mindful on his or her indoor water usage.' 'I was simply stating that 55 gallons per day is the standard for per capita indoor water usage per day set forth by the state legislature,' he said. 'Those fines are to the water agency or provider. That said, there is the question of whether a water agency or provider would pass along this fine to the individual consumer.' Individuals don't have to worry about fines The false claims about California water use center on two bills - Senate Bill 606 and Assembly Bill 1668 - that Brown, the state's former governor, signed into law on May 31, 2018, as California was reeling from a five-year drought that ended in 2017. Broadly speaking, the laws instruct cities, water districts and some larger agricultural water districts to establish strict water budgets. But the new water limits - which kick in starting in 2023, not 2020 - won't target individuals. The legislation requires cities, water districts and large agricultural water districts to come up with budgetary targets for water use by 2022. They will need to meet these targets across their ratepayer bases, with failure to do so resulting in a fine of $1,000 per day or $10,000 per day during drought emergencies. George Kostyrko, director of the office of public affairs for the State Water Resources Control Board, told us the water districts will be guided in their target-setting by a few standards, one of which is the allowance of 55 gallons per capita per day for indoor residential water use - a number that will drop to 50 gallons by 2030. 'These are not individual mandates for homeowners, but actually a task given to each water district to average water consumption use out to hit the goal,' Kostyrko said. 'There is nothing regulating the time a person may shower or when they may or may not do laundry,' added Jim Metropulos, legislative director for state Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, who wrote Assembly Bill 1668. In sum, fines based on consumption will be administered to the water agencies that fail to meet their goals, not to individuals who use too much water in their daily lives. Of course, water districts could theoretically shift those costs to individual water bills. But no resident will be fined $1,000 for doing laundry and showering on a normal day. Senate Bill 606 does give water agencies the ability to fine some individual lawbreakers, the Sacramento Bee noted. But that's only when they violate local water-use limits during an official 'water shortage emergency' that threatens 'human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'Starting Jan. 1 California residents can't take shower, do laundry, poop in toilet and flush on same day.' Legislation in California means that collectively, Californians will soon need to begin using less water in order for water districts to meet the state's efficiency standards. But those limits haven't kicked in yet, and when they do, the government won't start demanding hefty fines from residents who shower and do laundry on the same day. We rate this statement False.
|
[
"110043-proof-20-8fb9de83f5f4c341b793d1b3295ddebb.jpg"
] |
'Starting Jan. 1 California residents can't take shower, do laundry, poop in toilet and flush on same day.
|
Contradiction
|
The police won't come knocking for Californians who shower and do laundry on the same day, despite what some social media users would have you believe. An old hoax about California's water conservation laws recently resurfaced after a guest on a Los Angeles TV station shared misinformation on air. 'Starting Jan. 1 California residents can't take shower, do laundry, poop in toilet and flush on same day,' said one Facebook post that drew thousands of views to the segment, which was broadcast Dec. 31 on KTLA. 'No really! This is not satire. 55 Gallons per person!' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We debunked the same bogus information about California's conservation efforts in 2018, shortly after then-California Gov. Jerry Brown signed two water-use bills into law. Now, as the misinformation makes a resurgence, we wanted to set the record straight: It was never illegal for Californians to shower and wash laundry on the same day. It still isn't. Old hoax, new outrage The renewed controversy came after KTLA, a local TV station, ran a segment on Dec. 31 about 'unusual and underreported' California laws taking effect in 2020. The network welcomed Southern California lawyer Richard Lee on the show, and an anchor teed up a discussion of two California water laws that Lee said would apply in 2020. Lee's response parroted many of the inaccurate claims we looked at in 2018. 'Doing a load of laundry takes about 40 to 50 gallons of water,' Lee said. 'Taking a shower for about eight minutes takes about 17 gallons of water.' 'Well, there's a limitation on your daily use of water of 55 gallons per day,' he continued. 'So that means, if you are taking a shower and if you're doing a load of laundry, you can't do both without being in violation of the law.' Lee went on to say that violators would be fined '$1,000 per each day that you are in violation,' and more during drought conditions, starting Jan. 1, 2020. 'Wow,' KTLA Morning News anchor Mark Kriski said. 'So all of a sudden, I can smoke marijuana as much as I want, but I can't take a shower. Unbelievable.' Claims that the laws ban showering and laundry on the same day are False. We fact-checked them when they first circulated in 2018. So did Snopes and a number of local news outlets. KTLA replaced the clip on its website with a correction noting that the segment 'included factual errors about two laws going into effect in 2020 regarding water conservation.' But that effort didn't stop the video from spreading to all corners of social media and making headlines on conservative sites such as American Lookout and the Gateway Pundit. A new California law fines you $1,000 if you shower and do 1 load of laundry in the same day I'm not kidding And if the Gov declares a drought, the fine goes up to *$10,000* Does it feel like Green tyranny yet? This is what the Climate Nutjobs want to force on everyone RT! pic.twitter.com/KU0HO6AEd1- Rogan O'Handley 🇺🇸 (@DC_Draino) January 3, 2020 The misinformation spread so far and so fast that the California Department of Water Resources and the Association of California Water Agencies both issued statements debunking it. A representative from KTLA declined to comment, but Lee told us that 'the segment was intended to simply be a quick rundown that each person in California could and should be more mindful on his or her indoor water usage.' 'I was simply stating that 55 gallons per day is the standard for per capita indoor water usage per day set forth by the state legislature,' he said. 'Those fines are to the water agency or provider. That said, there is the question of whether a water agency or provider would pass along this fine to the individual consumer.' Individuals don't have to worry about fines The false claims about California water use center on two bills - Senate Bill 606 and Assembly Bill 1668 - that Brown, the state's former governor, signed into law on May 31, 2018, as California was reeling from a five-year drought that ended in 2017. Broadly speaking, the laws instruct cities, water districts and some larger agricultural water districts to establish strict water budgets. But the new water limits - which kick in starting in 2023, not 2020 - won't target individuals. The legislation requires cities, water districts and large agricultural water districts to come up with budgetary targets for water use by 2022. They will need to meet these targets across their ratepayer bases, with failure to do so resulting in a fine of $1,000 per day or $10,000 per day during drought emergencies. George Kostyrko, director of the office of public affairs for the State Water Resources Control Board, told us the water districts will be guided in their target-setting by a few standards, one of which is the allowance of 55 gallons per capita per day for indoor residential water use - a number that will drop to 50 gallons by 2030. 'These are not individual mandates for homeowners, but actually a task given to each water district to average water consumption use out to hit the goal,' Kostyrko said. 'There is nothing regulating the time a person may shower or when they may or may not do laundry,' added Jim Metropulos, legislative director for state Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, who wrote Assembly Bill 1668. In sum, fines based on consumption will be administered to the water agencies that fail to meet their goals, not to individuals who use too much water in their daily lives. Of course, water districts could theoretically shift those costs to individual water bills. But no resident will be fined $1,000 for doing laundry and showering on a normal day. Senate Bill 606 does give water agencies the ability to fine some individual lawbreakers, the Sacramento Bee noted. But that's only when they violate local water-use limits during an official 'water shortage emergency' that threatens 'human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'Starting Jan. 1 California residents can't take shower, do laundry, poop in toilet and flush on same day.' Legislation in California means that collectively, Californians will soon need to begin using less water in order for water districts to meet the state's efficiency standards. But those limits haven't kicked in yet, and when they do, the government won't start demanding hefty fines from residents who shower and do laundry on the same day. We rate this statement False.
|
[
"110043-proof-20-8fb9de83f5f4c341b793d1b3295ddebb.jpg"
] |
'Coronavirus - 22. Clintons - 39.
|
Contradiction
|
In some corners of the internet, every crisis traces back to Bill and Hillary Clinton. No matter how many times fact-checkers swat down hoaxes faulting them for murders and other mischief, there's always another conspiracy floating around, or so it seems. This time, a Facebook post suggests that the political family is responsible for more deaths than the novel coronavirus that's infected more than 153,000 people worldwide. 'Coronavirus - 22. Clintons - 39,' said an image posted to Facebook on March 9, 2020. The post doesn't specify that the numbers are in reference to alleged death tolls, but comments from the original poster and other social media users make the connection clear. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In reality, there's no proof that the Clintons have a 'body count' or have killed people who have damaging information on them, as hoaxes about the Clintons routinely allege. These conspiracies are not new. In a 1998 fact-check of a bogus hit list that purported to name dozens of people the Clintons had killed, Snopes wrote that similar rumors had been spreading for decades. Since our start in 2007, we've also seen numerous Clinton-related conspiracies. We've debunked claims alleging the Clintons were behind the celebrity deaths of everyone from Kate Spade to Anthony Bourdain to Kobe Bryant to Paul Walker. We've also quashed numerous baseless rumors about the Clintons orchestrating the murders of political leaders and enemies. Recently, we debunked a Wisconsin state lawmaker's false claim that 'more people have died from knowing Hillary' than the novel coronavirus. As of March 15, COVID-19 had killed 5,735 people globally and 41 people in the United States, according to the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Protection. More recent news reports have the U.S. death toll topping 70 people as of March 16. As of March 9 - the date the Facebook post went up - COVID-19 had killed 3,809 people globally and 11 people in the U.S., according to the WHO and the CDC. But those numbers were lagging, as some news reports from March 8 had the U.S. number up to 22 people. Regardless of where the coronavirus death toll sits, there's no credible evidence to substantiate the claim that the Clintons are behind the deaths of 39 people. We rate this post Pants on Fire!
|
We rate this post Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
'Coronavirus - 22. Clintons - 39.
|
Contradiction
|
In some corners of the internet, every crisis traces back to Bill and Hillary Clinton. No matter how many times fact-checkers swat down hoaxes faulting them for murders and other mischief, there's always another conspiracy floating around, or so it seems. This time, a Facebook post suggests that the political family is responsible for more deaths than the novel coronavirus that's infected more than 153,000 people worldwide. 'Coronavirus - 22. Clintons - 39,' said an image posted to Facebook on March 9, 2020. The post doesn't specify that the numbers are in reference to alleged death tolls, but comments from the original poster and other social media users make the connection clear. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In reality, there's no proof that the Clintons have a 'body count' or have killed people who have damaging information on them, as hoaxes about the Clintons routinely allege. These conspiracies are not new. In a 1998 fact-check of a bogus hit list that purported to name dozens of people the Clintons had killed, Snopes wrote that similar rumors had been spreading for decades. Since our start in 2007, we've also seen numerous Clinton-related conspiracies. We've debunked claims alleging the Clintons were behind the celebrity deaths of everyone from Kate Spade to Anthony Bourdain to Kobe Bryant to Paul Walker. We've also quashed numerous baseless rumors about the Clintons orchestrating the murders of political leaders and enemies. Recently, we debunked a Wisconsin state lawmaker's false claim that 'more people have died from knowing Hillary' than the novel coronavirus. As of March 15, COVID-19 had killed 5,735 people globally and 41 people in the United States, according to the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Protection. More recent news reports have the U.S. death toll topping 70 people as of March 16. As of March 9 - the date the Facebook post went up - COVID-19 had killed 3,809 people globally and 11 people in the U.S., according to the WHO and the CDC. But those numbers were lagging, as some news reports from March 8 had the U.S. number up to 22 people. Regardless of where the coronavirus death toll sits, there's no credible evidence to substantiate the claim that the Clintons are behind the deaths of 39 people. We rate this post Pants on Fire!
|
We rate this post Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
'The Biden White House had no representative' who came to honor the return of the 13 service members' remains at Dover Air Force Base.
|
Contradiction
|
On the night of Aug. 28, Buzz Patterson, a GOP candidate for Congress in California, tweeted that the White House failed to send a representative to the dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware for the remains of 13 U.S. military service members who died in the Aug. 26 terror attack outside of Kabul, Afghanistan. A similar post was published by real estate entrepreneur and Republican political adviser Blair Brandt, who tweeted: 'BREAKING: The Biden White House had no representative, including the President, First Lady or Vice President, attend the return of 13 KIA service members back onto American soil at Dover Air Force Base.' Both tweets were based on a false premise: At the time they were posted, the plane carrying the remains hadn't yet arrived at Dover, and the ceremony hadn't happened yet. Both tweets were subsequently deleted. But the false claim continued to circulate overnight, including on Instagram, where an Aug. 29 post shared a screenshot of Brandt's tweet. According to a White House press pool report, the plane carrying the remains of the fallen service members arrived at Dover at 8 a.m. on Aug. 29. Biden and first lady Jill Biden arrived in Dover on Air Force One about 40 minutes later. CNN reported that they then met with the families of the service members at Dover's Center for Families of the Fallen. The Bidens were joined by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The White House declined to comment on the claim in the tweets and Instagram post. A Pentagon duty officer pointed to a tweet from Biden, which showed a photo of the Bidens, Austin, Blinken and others standing with their hands over their hearts after 11 a.m., when the caskets of the troops were carried from the plane to the transfer vehicles. In keeping with protocol, the press was instructed not to look, film or photograph in the direction of the military family members. The 13 service members that we lost were heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice in service of our highest American ideals and while saving the lives of others. Our sacred obligation to the families of these heroes will last forever. pic.twitter.com/lPx4a4ebS7- President Biden (@POTUS) August 29, 2021
|
Our ruling Social media posts claimed that no one from the Biden administration attended the dignified transfer of the remains of 13 fallen military personnel who were killed in the Aug. 26 terror attack in Afghanistan. The post repeated a false claim that was first shared and spread on Aug. 28, hours before the ceremony took place. The Bidens did attend the ceremony on Aug. 29, along with the secretaries of defense and state. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
|
[
"110062-proof-10-a7c14a869afb42b7e9ef33cd1f6a70bb.jpg"
] |
'Disturbing Pfizer ad tells kids they'll get superpowers from COVID jab.
|
Contradiction
|
'PURE EVIL,' says a Nov. 3 blog headline about COVID-19 vaccines for children. 'Disturbing Pfizer ad tells kids they'll get superpowers from COVID jab.' The post, on Gateway Pundit, includes the ad. Only the video doesn't say what the headline claims. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) 'Getting ready to fight COVID,' says a boy at the beginning of the spot wearing an eye mask and standing next to a girl wearing a cape. Pfizer posted it on YouTube on Nov. 1. 'All of us want to be superheroes,' says a child narrating as other children can be seen dressed up in superhero accessories, 'and the most important heroes are those that help others.' 'This year thousands of kids like us, around the world, joined the COVID-19 vaccine trial, and when they did, they became our superheroes,' the narrator continues. Then a series of children appear to thank 'all the kids who volunteered' for 'sharing your superpowers of' things like 'courage, 'trying new things,' 'helping not just yourself but many other kids,' and 'bravery.' RELATED VIDEO In nearly a minute and a half, no one makes the claim that the vaccine gives children superpowers. And the context in which superpowers are mentioned, it's clear they're not referring to, say, invisibility or flying. The headline makes a different case, and using language like 'disturbing' and 'pure evil,' leaves readers with the incorrect impression that the company is dangling the false promise of movie superhero powers to trick children into getting the COVID-19 vaccine. That's incorrect. We rate this headline False.
|
That's incorrect. We rate this headline False.
|
[] |
'Our doctors get more money if somebody dies from COVID. ... So what they do is they say, 'I'm sorry, but, you know, everybody dies of COVID.
|
Contradiction
|
A few weeks ago, President Donald Trump had praise for doctors on the frontlines of treating coronavirus patients. 'Since the plague arrived from China, we have seen our doctors, nurses, first responders, scientists, and researchers at their very best,' he said Sept. 24. Trump has changed his tune. In his recent rallies, with COVID-19 cases skyrocketing and deaths climbing, he has taken to accusing physicians of inflating deaths to line their pockets. 'Our doctors get more money if somebody dies from COVID,' he told supporters at a rally in Waterford, Mich., Oct. 30. 'You know that, right? I mean, our doctors are very smart people. So what they do is they say, 'I'm sorry, but, you know, everybody dies of COVID.'' This is a persistent theory that lacks any proof. Johns Hopkins University researchers reported that the virus has killed more than 230,000 people. There is no evidence that figure is exaggerated. If anything, public health analysts say it likely undercounts the reach of the disease. And while the government offers 20% more for the care of Medicare patients with COVID-19, the majority of doctors work for hospital systems. That means whatever higher payments might come, they don't go to them. In order for Trump's claim to have an appreciable impact on reported deaths, thousands of doctors would need to lie on death certificates without any financial benefit. We recently rated False a similar claim from Trump that focused on hospitals. Trump's words imply that death certificates are subject to the whim of physicians. That's wrong, and here's why. Death certificate rules Ashish K. Jha, dean of Brown University's School of Public Health, noted there are legal sanctions for falsifying death records. 'Doctors aren't taking random deaths and calling them COVID deaths,' Jha wrote Oct. 27 in the website MedScape. 'That would be fraud.' Jha also dismissed the impact of additional payments. He gave the example of a patient who spends more than four days on a ventilator. 'Without COVID, Medicare pays about $35,000 for that patient's care,' Jha wrote. 'With COVID, about $40,000.' In a tweet, Jha noted that to get this bump, the hospital must prove that the patient tested positive for COVID-19. So what happened in COVID era? Cares Act gives hospitals a 20% bump (to about $9600 - 13K) if pneumonia is from COVID Additional $1600 - $2200 for a typical COVID pneumonia patient To get this bump, hospitals must document that patient is COVID positive 3/n- Ashish K. Jha (@ashishkjha) October 25, 2020 Payment rules For the first time ever, in 2018, the number of doctors working for hospitals exceeded those who worked in independent practices. This means that the additional payments Trump referenced don't apply to most doctors. A COVID-19 diagnosis doesn't change what they charge. 'Hospitals are paid that way, not doctors,' said Maggie McGillick, spokeswoman for the American College of Emergency Physicians. 'Doctors are typically paid based on the service they deliver.' The majority of deaths take place in hospitals and nursing homes. Trump's statement would mean that doctors who stand to make no financial gain would put themselves at legal risk by falsifying a death record. Decisions on how to classify a given death are made by local doctors or coroners, but they are based on World Health Organization guidelines followed by the U.S. and nearly every other country. The approach to identifying an underlying cause is laid out by the World Health Organization, which says a 'death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma).' No evidence of over reporting The CDC reported that as of early October, the U.S. had about 300,000 more deaths in 2020 than would be expected in a typical year, two-thirds of which can be attributed directly to COVID-19. The data snapshot was based on Oct. 3 figures. That would put the death toll at 200,000, which was very close to the number reported by another regular source, the COVID Tracking Project. But the CDC went further. 'As of Oct. 15, 216,025 deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported in the United States,' the report said. 'However, this number might underestimate the total impact of the pandemic on mortality.' This is consistent with other studies that show no overcount of deaths from the virus. Physicians push back Individually and collectively, doctors have rejected Trump's claim. Philadelphia physician Dr. Priya Mammen tweeted that many frontline workers are buying their own personal protective equipment because hospitals don't have enough. Mammen said many of her colleagues are 'exhausted by saving lives of preventable COVID.' The American College of Emergency Physicians said Trump's implication that doctors seek to gain financially is 'offensive.' 'Emergency physicians and other health care workers have risked their lives day in and day out for almost a year battling the greatest public health crisis in a generation - all while watching countless patients die alone, going to work without sufficient protection equipment, and struggling with crushing anxiety about getting sick or spreading the virus to their loved ones,' the group said Oct. 25. We reached out to the Trump campaign for evidence that doctors are inflating the death figures. We did not hear back.
|
Our ruling Trump said that doctors inflate the number of COVID-19 deaths to 'get more money. ... So what they do is they say, 'I'm sorry, but, you know, everybody dies of COVID.'' There is no evidence to back this up. Doctors and coroners follow established guidelines on the cause of death, and false reporting is a crime. A plurality of doctors work for hospitals and have no financial incentive to falsify death records. Medicare does pay more for COVID-19 patients, but hospitals must prove a positive diagnosis for the disease. A CDC analysis, in line with other research, finds the reported deaths from COVID-19 likely underestimate deaths from the virus. We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"110072-proof-35-c7b8ab7155c884e6d7d7f7dd48b7b95e.jpg"
] |
'Our doctors get more money if somebody dies from COVID. ... So what they do is they say, 'I'm sorry, but, you know, everybody dies of COVID.
|
Contradiction
|
A few weeks ago, President Donald Trump had praise for doctors on the frontlines of treating coronavirus patients. 'Since the plague arrived from China, we have seen our doctors, nurses, first responders, scientists, and researchers at their very best,' he said Sept. 24. Trump has changed his tune. In his recent rallies, with COVID-19 cases skyrocketing and deaths climbing, he has taken to accusing physicians of inflating deaths to line their pockets. 'Our doctors get more money if somebody dies from COVID,' he told supporters at a rally in Waterford, Mich., Oct. 30. 'You know that, right? I mean, our doctors are very smart people. So what they do is they say, 'I'm sorry, but, you know, everybody dies of COVID.'' This is a persistent theory that lacks any proof. Johns Hopkins University researchers reported that the virus has killed more than 230,000 people. There is no evidence that figure is exaggerated. If anything, public health analysts say it likely undercounts the reach of the disease. And while the government offers 20% more for the care of Medicare patients with COVID-19, the majority of doctors work for hospital systems. That means whatever higher payments might come, they don't go to them. In order for Trump's claim to have an appreciable impact on reported deaths, thousands of doctors would need to lie on death certificates without any financial benefit. We recently rated False a similar claim from Trump that focused on hospitals. Trump's words imply that death certificates are subject to the whim of physicians. That's wrong, and here's why. Death certificate rules Ashish K. Jha, dean of Brown University's School of Public Health, noted there are legal sanctions for falsifying death records. 'Doctors aren't taking random deaths and calling them COVID deaths,' Jha wrote Oct. 27 in the website MedScape. 'That would be fraud.' Jha also dismissed the impact of additional payments. He gave the example of a patient who spends more than four days on a ventilator. 'Without COVID, Medicare pays about $35,000 for that patient's care,' Jha wrote. 'With COVID, about $40,000.' In a tweet, Jha noted that to get this bump, the hospital must prove that the patient tested positive for COVID-19. So what happened in COVID era? Cares Act gives hospitals a 20% bump (to about $9600 - 13K) if pneumonia is from COVID Additional $1600 - $2200 for a typical COVID pneumonia patient To get this bump, hospitals must document that patient is COVID positive 3/n- Ashish K. Jha (@ashishkjha) October 25, 2020 Payment rules For the first time ever, in 2018, the number of doctors working for hospitals exceeded those who worked in independent practices. This means that the additional payments Trump referenced don't apply to most doctors. A COVID-19 diagnosis doesn't change what they charge. 'Hospitals are paid that way, not doctors,' said Maggie McGillick, spokeswoman for the American College of Emergency Physicians. 'Doctors are typically paid based on the service they deliver.' The majority of deaths take place in hospitals and nursing homes. Trump's statement would mean that doctors who stand to make no financial gain would put themselves at legal risk by falsifying a death record. Decisions on how to classify a given death are made by local doctors or coroners, but they are based on World Health Organization guidelines followed by the U.S. and nearly every other country. The approach to identifying an underlying cause is laid out by the World Health Organization, which says a 'death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma).' No evidence of over reporting The CDC reported that as of early October, the U.S. had about 300,000 more deaths in 2020 than would be expected in a typical year, two-thirds of which can be attributed directly to COVID-19. The data snapshot was based on Oct. 3 figures. That would put the death toll at 200,000, which was very close to the number reported by another regular source, the COVID Tracking Project. But the CDC went further. 'As of Oct. 15, 216,025 deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported in the United States,' the report said. 'However, this number might underestimate the total impact of the pandemic on mortality.' This is consistent with other studies that show no overcount of deaths from the virus. Physicians push back Individually and collectively, doctors have rejected Trump's claim. Philadelphia physician Dr. Priya Mammen tweeted that many frontline workers are buying their own personal protective equipment because hospitals don't have enough. Mammen said many of her colleagues are 'exhausted by saving lives of preventable COVID.' The American College of Emergency Physicians said Trump's implication that doctors seek to gain financially is 'offensive.' 'Emergency physicians and other health care workers have risked their lives day in and day out for almost a year battling the greatest public health crisis in a generation - all while watching countless patients die alone, going to work without sufficient protection equipment, and struggling with crushing anxiety about getting sick or spreading the virus to their loved ones,' the group said Oct. 25. We reached out to the Trump campaign for evidence that doctors are inflating the death figures. We did not hear back.
|
Our ruling Trump said that doctors inflate the number of COVID-19 deaths to 'get more money. ... So what they do is they say, 'I'm sorry, but, you know, everybody dies of COVID.'' There is no evidence to back this up. Doctors and coroners follow established guidelines on the cause of death, and false reporting is a crime. A plurality of doctors work for hospitals and have no financial incentive to falsify death records. Medicare does pay more for COVID-19 patients, but hospitals must prove a positive diagnosis for the disease. A CDC analysis, in line with other research, finds the reported deaths from COVID-19 likely underestimate deaths from the virus. We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"110072-proof-35-c7b8ab7155c884e6d7d7f7dd48b7b95e.jpg"
] |
'Our doctors get more money if somebody dies from COVID. ... So what they do is they say, 'I'm sorry, but, you know, everybody dies of COVID.
|
Contradiction
|
A few weeks ago, President Donald Trump had praise for doctors on the frontlines of treating coronavirus patients. 'Since the plague arrived from China, we have seen our doctors, nurses, first responders, scientists, and researchers at their very best,' he said Sept. 24. Trump has changed his tune. In his recent rallies, with COVID-19 cases skyrocketing and deaths climbing, he has taken to accusing physicians of inflating deaths to line their pockets. 'Our doctors get more money if somebody dies from COVID,' he told supporters at a rally in Waterford, Mich., Oct. 30. 'You know that, right? I mean, our doctors are very smart people. So what they do is they say, 'I'm sorry, but, you know, everybody dies of COVID.'' This is a persistent theory that lacks any proof. Johns Hopkins University researchers reported that the virus has killed more than 230,000 people. There is no evidence that figure is exaggerated. If anything, public health analysts say it likely undercounts the reach of the disease. And while the government offers 20% more for the care of Medicare patients with COVID-19, the majority of doctors work for hospital systems. That means whatever higher payments might come, they don't go to them. In order for Trump's claim to have an appreciable impact on reported deaths, thousands of doctors would need to lie on death certificates without any financial benefit. We recently rated False a similar claim from Trump that focused on hospitals. Trump's words imply that death certificates are subject to the whim of physicians. That's wrong, and here's why. Death certificate rules Ashish K. Jha, dean of Brown University's School of Public Health, noted there are legal sanctions for falsifying death records. 'Doctors aren't taking random deaths and calling them COVID deaths,' Jha wrote Oct. 27 in the website MedScape. 'That would be fraud.' Jha also dismissed the impact of additional payments. He gave the example of a patient who spends more than four days on a ventilator. 'Without COVID, Medicare pays about $35,000 for that patient's care,' Jha wrote. 'With COVID, about $40,000.' In a tweet, Jha noted that to get this bump, the hospital must prove that the patient tested positive for COVID-19. So what happened in COVID era? Cares Act gives hospitals a 20% bump (to about $9600 - 13K) if pneumonia is from COVID Additional $1600 - $2200 for a typical COVID pneumonia patient To get this bump, hospitals must document that patient is COVID positive 3/n- Ashish K. Jha (@ashishkjha) October 25, 2020 Payment rules For the first time ever, in 2018, the number of doctors working for hospitals exceeded those who worked in independent practices. This means that the additional payments Trump referenced don't apply to most doctors. A COVID-19 diagnosis doesn't change what they charge. 'Hospitals are paid that way, not doctors,' said Maggie McGillick, spokeswoman for the American College of Emergency Physicians. 'Doctors are typically paid based on the service they deliver.' The majority of deaths take place in hospitals and nursing homes. Trump's statement would mean that doctors who stand to make no financial gain would put themselves at legal risk by falsifying a death record. Decisions on how to classify a given death are made by local doctors or coroners, but they are based on World Health Organization guidelines followed by the U.S. and nearly every other country. The approach to identifying an underlying cause is laid out by the World Health Organization, which says a 'death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma).' No evidence of over reporting The CDC reported that as of early October, the U.S. had about 300,000 more deaths in 2020 than would be expected in a typical year, two-thirds of which can be attributed directly to COVID-19. The data snapshot was based on Oct. 3 figures. That would put the death toll at 200,000, which was very close to the number reported by another regular source, the COVID Tracking Project. But the CDC went further. 'As of Oct. 15, 216,025 deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported in the United States,' the report said. 'However, this number might underestimate the total impact of the pandemic on mortality.' This is consistent with other studies that show no overcount of deaths from the virus. Physicians push back Individually and collectively, doctors have rejected Trump's claim. Philadelphia physician Dr. Priya Mammen tweeted that many frontline workers are buying their own personal protective equipment because hospitals don't have enough. Mammen said many of her colleagues are 'exhausted by saving lives of preventable COVID.' The American College of Emergency Physicians said Trump's implication that doctors seek to gain financially is 'offensive.' 'Emergency physicians and other health care workers have risked their lives day in and day out for almost a year battling the greatest public health crisis in a generation - all while watching countless patients die alone, going to work without sufficient protection equipment, and struggling with crushing anxiety about getting sick or spreading the virus to their loved ones,' the group said Oct. 25. We reached out to the Trump campaign for evidence that doctors are inflating the death figures. We did not hear back.
|
Our ruling Trump said that doctors inflate the number of COVID-19 deaths to 'get more money. ... So what they do is they say, 'I'm sorry, but, you know, everybody dies of COVID.'' There is no evidence to back this up. Doctors and coroners follow established guidelines on the cause of death, and false reporting is a crime. A plurality of doctors work for hospitals and have no financial incentive to falsify death records. Medicare does pay more for COVID-19 patients, but hospitals must prove a positive diagnosis for the disease. A CDC analysis, in line with other research, finds the reported deaths from COVID-19 likely underestimate deaths from the virus. We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"110072-proof-35-c7b8ab7155c884e6d7d7f7dd48b7b95e.jpg"
] |
'QAnon violence! There is none.'
|
Contradiction
|
QAnon, the sprawling and baseless internet conspiracy theory labeled by the FBI as a potential domestic terrorist threat, has on several occasions been linked to real-world violence. Fox News host Greg Gutfeld falsely claimed in a recent episode of 'The Five' that it had not. 'QAnon violence! There is none,' Gutfeld said, while laughing and clapping, during an Aug. 20 exchange with co-host Juan Williams. 'That's funny. You are hilarious.' In reality, the QAnon hoax has been connected to several incidents of violence or threatened violence. Gutfeld is wrong to say that 'there is none.' Gutfeld's comment came one day after President Donald Trump demurred when he was asked for his thoughts about the conspiracy theory, telling a reporter who asked about the movement during a press conference that he had heard QAnon followers 'are people that love our country' and 'like me very much.' The once-fringe conspiracy theory has expanded its influence since the start of the coronavirus pandemic by pushing miracle cures and misinformation. Supporters of QAnon believe or promote the belief that a cabal of Democrats and celebrities are Satan-worshipping pedophiles operating a global child sex-trafficking ring, and that Trump is leading a covert effort to stop them. The QAnon hoax takes its name from a user on the online forum 4chan, known as 'Q,' who claims to be an anonymous government official. Q's cryptic posts beginning in 2017 set in motion a wide-ranging conspiracy theory embraced by Trump supporters. Since then, QAnon symbols and paraphernalia have been spotted at Trump rallies and events. Trump has also amplified QAnon Twitter accounts and lent support to QAnon followers running for Congress, including Republican House candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene in Georgia. On some occasions, the hoax has helped spur its followers to violence. Kathryn Olmsted, a history professor at the University of California, Davis, and the author of a book on conspiracy theories in American politics, said Gutfeld's QAnon claim has 'no foundation.' 'It's a theory about a deep-state coup against the president,' Olmsted said. 'If its adherents truly believe the theory, it's not surprising that they might turn to violence to stop the conspirators.' Fox News did not respond to requests for comment. The FBI and other groups have linked QAnon to violence The FBI named QAnon specifically in a May 2019 intelligence bulletin produced for distribution among intelligence and law enforcement agencies that described 'conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists' as a growing threat in the U.S. The document was obtained by Yahoo! News. The memo detailed multiple cases in which violent incidents or the threat of violence inspired by QAnon and other conspiratorial beliefs led to arrests. 'The FBI assesses these conspiracy theories very likely will emerge, spread, and evolve in the modern information marketplace, occasionally driving both groups and individual extremists to carry out criminal or violent acts,' the memo said. West Point's Combating Terrorism Center, an academic institute within the United States Military Academy, also cited a number of examples of violence related to QAnon in a July report. 'QAnon has contributed to the radicalization of several people to notable criminal acts or acts of violence,' the report said. Facebook, which recently joined other social media platforms working to crack down on QAnon content when it removed hundreds of groups that had promoted the conspiracy theory, cited the discussion of potential violence among those groups as reason for their removal. 'We have seen growing movements that, while not directly organizing violence, have celebrated violent acts, shown that they have weapons and suggest they will use them, or have individual followers with patterns of violent behavior,' Facebook said in the statement. Examples of QAnon-linked violence The FBI memo and the Combating Terrorism Center report both logged multiple instances where QAnon beliefs were connected to real-world crime, as have news outlets and activist groups such as the liberal research organization Media Matters for America. Those incidents of violence, potential violence or criminal activity include: In June, a Massachusetts man led police on a chase through Massachusetts and New Hampshire with his five children in the car. In a live-stream Facebook video of the event, the man discussed QAnon conspiracies. In April, an Illinois woman was arrested in New York City for driving onto a pier with a car full of knives in an apparent attempt to reach a Navy hospital ship housing COVID-19 patients. In a live stream of her travels, the woman threatened to kill Joe Biden over claims of sex trafficking. She also posted about QAnon on Facebook before the incident. In March 2019, a New York man killed Francisco Cali, a member of the prominent Gambino crime family. The man said the CIA had infiltrated the Mafia. The incident came after the man requested the arrest of several high-profile Democrats. He supported QAnon and during one court appearance scrawled 'Q' on the palm of his hand. In January 2019, a Seattle man was arrested for allegedly killing his brother with a sword. The man posted about QAnon on social media, the Daily Beast reported. In June 2018, a Nevada man in an armored truck blocked traffic on a bridge near the Hoover Dam, demanding the release of a government document and fleeing after a standoff with police. Law enforcement found weapons in his car. The man discussed QAnon beliefs after his arrest and cited them in letters he wrote from jail. In May 2018, the leader of an unofficial local veterans aid group falsely claimed that he had discovered a child sex trafficking ring at a homeless camp in Tucson, Arizona. He referenced QAnon as he and armed group members searched for other camps. He was later arrested for stealing and damaging water tanks belonging to a humanitarian group. QAnon has also been associated with various threats and other crimes, including vandalism. There have also been violent incidents related to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which has been largely subsumed into QAnon. Supporters of the Pizzagate theory also believe a child sex trafficking ring is being run by Hillary Clinton and other Democratic officials. One armed man entered a Washington pizzeria in 2016 to investigate the baseless theory; another man motivated by conspiracy theories started a fire at the same pizza joint in 2019. People may question whether QAnon caused the acts or was offered as a rationale after the fact, said Mark Fenster, a University of Florida law professor and the author of a book on American conspiracy theories. But it's wrong to say that there's been no violence related to QAnon, he said.
|
Our ruling Gutfeld said, 'QAnon violence! There is none.' In fact, there have been a handful of examples. The FBI identified QAnon as a potential terrorist threat in a May 2019 memo that listed some incidents of violence or threatened violence associated with the hoax and others like it. News reports, activist groups and an academic institute have also highlighted examples of violence. And two experts on American conspiracy theories said Gutfeld's claim is wrong. We rate this statement False.
|
[] |
'QAnon violence! There is none.'
|
Contradiction
|
QAnon, the sprawling and baseless internet conspiracy theory labeled by the FBI as a potential domestic terrorist threat, has on several occasions been linked to real-world violence. Fox News host Greg Gutfeld falsely claimed in a recent episode of 'The Five' that it had not. 'QAnon violence! There is none,' Gutfeld said, while laughing and clapping, during an Aug. 20 exchange with co-host Juan Williams. 'That's funny. You are hilarious.' In reality, the QAnon hoax has been connected to several incidents of violence or threatened violence. Gutfeld is wrong to say that 'there is none.' Gutfeld's comment came one day after President Donald Trump demurred when he was asked for his thoughts about the conspiracy theory, telling a reporter who asked about the movement during a press conference that he had heard QAnon followers 'are people that love our country' and 'like me very much.' The once-fringe conspiracy theory has expanded its influence since the start of the coronavirus pandemic by pushing miracle cures and misinformation. Supporters of QAnon believe or promote the belief that a cabal of Democrats and celebrities are Satan-worshipping pedophiles operating a global child sex-trafficking ring, and that Trump is leading a covert effort to stop them. The QAnon hoax takes its name from a user on the online forum 4chan, known as 'Q,' who claims to be an anonymous government official. Q's cryptic posts beginning in 2017 set in motion a wide-ranging conspiracy theory embraced by Trump supporters. Since then, QAnon symbols and paraphernalia have been spotted at Trump rallies and events. Trump has also amplified QAnon Twitter accounts and lent support to QAnon followers running for Congress, including Republican House candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene in Georgia. On some occasions, the hoax has helped spur its followers to violence. Kathryn Olmsted, a history professor at the University of California, Davis, and the author of a book on conspiracy theories in American politics, said Gutfeld's QAnon claim has 'no foundation.' 'It's a theory about a deep-state coup against the president,' Olmsted said. 'If its adherents truly believe the theory, it's not surprising that they might turn to violence to stop the conspirators.' Fox News did not respond to requests for comment. The FBI and other groups have linked QAnon to violence The FBI named QAnon specifically in a May 2019 intelligence bulletin produced for distribution among intelligence and law enforcement agencies that described 'conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists' as a growing threat in the U.S. The document was obtained by Yahoo! News. The memo detailed multiple cases in which violent incidents or the threat of violence inspired by QAnon and other conspiratorial beliefs led to arrests. 'The FBI assesses these conspiracy theories very likely will emerge, spread, and evolve in the modern information marketplace, occasionally driving both groups and individual extremists to carry out criminal or violent acts,' the memo said. West Point's Combating Terrorism Center, an academic institute within the United States Military Academy, also cited a number of examples of violence related to QAnon in a July report. 'QAnon has contributed to the radicalization of several people to notable criminal acts or acts of violence,' the report said. Facebook, which recently joined other social media platforms working to crack down on QAnon content when it removed hundreds of groups that had promoted the conspiracy theory, cited the discussion of potential violence among those groups as reason for their removal. 'We have seen growing movements that, while not directly organizing violence, have celebrated violent acts, shown that they have weapons and suggest they will use them, or have individual followers with patterns of violent behavior,' Facebook said in the statement. Examples of QAnon-linked violence The FBI memo and the Combating Terrorism Center report both logged multiple instances where QAnon beliefs were connected to real-world crime, as have news outlets and activist groups such as the liberal research organization Media Matters for America. Those incidents of violence, potential violence or criminal activity include: In June, a Massachusetts man led police on a chase through Massachusetts and New Hampshire with his five children in the car. In a live-stream Facebook video of the event, the man discussed QAnon conspiracies. In April, an Illinois woman was arrested in New York City for driving onto a pier with a car full of knives in an apparent attempt to reach a Navy hospital ship housing COVID-19 patients. In a live stream of her travels, the woman threatened to kill Joe Biden over claims of sex trafficking. She also posted about QAnon on Facebook before the incident. In March 2019, a New York man killed Francisco Cali, a member of the prominent Gambino crime family. The man said the CIA had infiltrated the Mafia. The incident came after the man requested the arrest of several high-profile Democrats. He supported QAnon and during one court appearance scrawled 'Q' on the palm of his hand. In January 2019, a Seattle man was arrested for allegedly killing his brother with a sword. The man posted about QAnon on social media, the Daily Beast reported. In June 2018, a Nevada man in an armored truck blocked traffic on a bridge near the Hoover Dam, demanding the release of a government document and fleeing after a standoff with police. Law enforcement found weapons in his car. The man discussed QAnon beliefs after his arrest and cited them in letters he wrote from jail. In May 2018, the leader of an unofficial local veterans aid group falsely claimed that he had discovered a child sex trafficking ring at a homeless camp in Tucson, Arizona. He referenced QAnon as he and armed group members searched for other camps. He was later arrested for stealing and damaging water tanks belonging to a humanitarian group. QAnon has also been associated with various threats and other crimes, including vandalism. There have also been violent incidents related to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which has been largely subsumed into QAnon. Supporters of the Pizzagate theory also believe a child sex trafficking ring is being run by Hillary Clinton and other Democratic officials. One armed man entered a Washington pizzeria in 2016 to investigate the baseless theory; another man motivated by conspiracy theories started a fire at the same pizza joint in 2019. People may question whether QAnon caused the acts or was offered as a rationale after the fact, said Mark Fenster, a University of Florida law professor and the author of a book on American conspiracy theories. But it's wrong to say that there's been no violence related to QAnon, he said.
|
Our ruling Gutfeld said, 'QAnon violence! There is none.' In fact, there have been a handful of examples. The FBI identified QAnon as a potential terrorist threat in a May 2019 memo that listed some incidents of violence or threatened violence associated with the hoax and others like it. News reports, activist groups and an academic institute have also highlighted examples of violence. And two experts on American conspiracy theories said Gutfeld's claim is wrong. We rate this statement False.
|
[] |
Al-Qaida is 'gone' from Afghanistan.
|
Contradiction
|
As President Joe Biden defended his administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan, he suggested that al-Qaida was no longer a threat there. 'Look, let's put this thing in perspective here,' Biden said in Aug. 20 remarks. 'What interest do we have in Afghanistan at this point with al-Qaida gone? We went to Afghanistan for the express purpose of getting rid of al-Qaida in Afghanistan, as well as getting Osama bin Laden. And we did.' Biden is wrong to say that al-Qaida is gone entirely; officials in his administration have said the terrorist group remains active. On the same day of Biden's remarks, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said: 'We know that al-Qaida is a presence, as well as ISIS, in Afghanistan and we've talked about that for quite some time. We do not believe it is exorbitantly high but we don't have an exact figure for you.' Kirby added that al-Qaida's presence isn't enough to merit a threat to the U.S. as it did 20 years ago. On Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken echoed that, saying that there are al-Qaida members in Afghanistan, but their capacity for a 9/11 type of attack has been diminished. Biden's statement that al-Qaida is 'gone' lacked that nuance and went further than his statement days earlier that al-Qaida in Afghanistan was 'degraded.' A White House spokesperson pointed to comments Biden made on Aug. 20 stating the threat of terrorism broadly, and al-Qaida specifically, remains a concern. Biden said that there was 'a greater danger from ISIS and al-Qaida and all these affiliates in other countries, by far, than there is from Afghanistan.' The U.N and Inspector General to Congress have said al-Qaida remains in Afghanistan Reports by government agencies in recent months show that al-Qaida remains a presence in Afghanistan. A United Nations report in June stated that a significant part of the leadership of al-Qaida resides in the Afghanistan and Pakistan border region. Al-Qaida is present in at least 15 Afghan provinces and 'is reported to number in the range of several dozen to 500 persons,' the report stated. While al-Qaida maintains contact with the Taliban, it is laying low, and it's longer term strategy is 'strategic patience for a period of time before it would seek to plan attacks against international targets again,' the report stated. The Inspector General to Congress compiled information from various federal agencies about operations in Afghanistan and released the information in a report this summer. The Defense Intelligence Agency told the Inspector General that the Taliban 'maintains a relationship with al-Qaida, providing safe haven for the terrorist group while publicly denying its presence in Afghanistan.' Under a February 2020 agreement between the Taliban and the United States, the Taliban was supposed to prevent al-Qaida from using Afghanistan to threaten the U.S. Therefore, the Taliban is likely downplaying its relationship with the group. Tricia Bacon, an associate professor who directs the Policy Anti-Terrorism Hub at American University, said while al-Qaida has been seriously degraded, it has also received a morale boost from the Taliban's victory. The group in Afghanistan 'is seriously weakened, but it has proven to be a resilient organization, capable of surviving despite immense counterterrorism pressure and of recovering from setbacks,' Bacon said. Following the recent statements by Biden and administration officials, a Taliban spokesperson said in an interview with Saudi Arabia's al-Hadath TV that al-Qaida is 'not present in Afghanistan in the first place,' according to the Washington Post. But the spokesperson said there may be 'family ties'' between members of the two organizations. Bacon said that the Taliban is being disingenuous and the statement does not 'accurately reflect the situation on the ground.' Laura Dugan, a professor of human security at Ohio State University, said Biden is correct in that the U.S. drove al-Qaida out of Afghanistan years ago and greatly diminished its centralized power. 'This was especially true after Osama bin Laden was killed. However, what is also true is that al-Qaida and the Taliban are closely aligned, and with the Taliban back in charge of Afghanistan, al-Qaida can move around more freely, which means that they can more easily plan large scale attacks,' Dugan said.
|
Our ruling Biden said that al-Qaida is 'gone' from Afghanistan. Biden's statement is wrong. On the same day, a Pentagon spokesperson said al-Qaida is present in Afghanistan, but that it wasn't as powerful as it was 20 years ago. Recent reports from the federal government and the U.N., as well as comments from government officials in recent months, indicate that al-Qaida is still present in Afghanistan. Its future capabilities remain unclear. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Joe Biden's full flop on messages about Afghanistan withdrawal RELATED: All of our fact-checks about Afghanistan
|
[
"110087-proof-30-a7dc3a978d6e9b686a4b65b224e3118a.jpg"
] |
Al-Qaida is 'gone' from Afghanistan.
|
Contradiction
|
As President Joe Biden defended his administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan, he suggested that al-Qaida was no longer a threat there. 'Look, let's put this thing in perspective here,' Biden said in Aug. 20 remarks. 'What interest do we have in Afghanistan at this point with al-Qaida gone? We went to Afghanistan for the express purpose of getting rid of al-Qaida in Afghanistan, as well as getting Osama bin Laden. And we did.' Biden is wrong to say that al-Qaida is gone entirely; officials in his administration have said the terrorist group remains active. On the same day of Biden's remarks, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said: 'We know that al-Qaida is a presence, as well as ISIS, in Afghanistan and we've talked about that for quite some time. We do not believe it is exorbitantly high but we don't have an exact figure for you.' Kirby added that al-Qaida's presence isn't enough to merit a threat to the U.S. as it did 20 years ago. On Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken echoed that, saying that there are al-Qaida members in Afghanistan, but their capacity for a 9/11 type of attack has been diminished. Biden's statement that al-Qaida is 'gone' lacked that nuance and went further than his statement days earlier that al-Qaida in Afghanistan was 'degraded.' A White House spokesperson pointed to comments Biden made on Aug. 20 stating the threat of terrorism broadly, and al-Qaida specifically, remains a concern. Biden said that there was 'a greater danger from ISIS and al-Qaida and all these affiliates in other countries, by far, than there is from Afghanistan.' The U.N and Inspector General to Congress have said al-Qaida remains in Afghanistan Reports by government agencies in recent months show that al-Qaida remains a presence in Afghanistan. A United Nations report in June stated that a significant part of the leadership of al-Qaida resides in the Afghanistan and Pakistan border region. Al-Qaida is present in at least 15 Afghan provinces and 'is reported to number in the range of several dozen to 500 persons,' the report stated. While al-Qaida maintains contact with the Taliban, it is laying low, and it's longer term strategy is 'strategic patience for a period of time before it would seek to plan attacks against international targets again,' the report stated. The Inspector General to Congress compiled information from various federal agencies about operations in Afghanistan and released the information in a report this summer. The Defense Intelligence Agency told the Inspector General that the Taliban 'maintains a relationship with al-Qaida, providing safe haven for the terrorist group while publicly denying its presence in Afghanistan.' Under a February 2020 agreement between the Taliban and the United States, the Taliban was supposed to prevent al-Qaida from using Afghanistan to threaten the U.S. Therefore, the Taliban is likely downplaying its relationship with the group. Tricia Bacon, an associate professor who directs the Policy Anti-Terrorism Hub at American University, said while al-Qaida has been seriously degraded, it has also received a morale boost from the Taliban's victory. The group in Afghanistan 'is seriously weakened, but it has proven to be a resilient organization, capable of surviving despite immense counterterrorism pressure and of recovering from setbacks,' Bacon said. Following the recent statements by Biden and administration officials, a Taliban spokesperson said in an interview with Saudi Arabia's al-Hadath TV that al-Qaida is 'not present in Afghanistan in the first place,' according to the Washington Post. But the spokesperson said there may be 'family ties'' between members of the two organizations. Bacon said that the Taliban is being disingenuous and the statement does not 'accurately reflect the situation on the ground.' Laura Dugan, a professor of human security at Ohio State University, said Biden is correct in that the U.S. drove al-Qaida out of Afghanistan years ago and greatly diminished its centralized power. 'This was especially true after Osama bin Laden was killed. However, what is also true is that al-Qaida and the Taliban are closely aligned, and with the Taliban back in charge of Afghanistan, al-Qaida can move around more freely, which means that they can more easily plan large scale attacks,' Dugan said.
|
Our ruling Biden said that al-Qaida is 'gone' from Afghanistan. Biden's statement is wrong. On the same day, a Pentagon spokesperson said al-Qaida is present in Afghanistan, but that it wasn't as powerful as it was 20 years ago. Recent reports from the federal government and the U.N., as well as comments from government officials in recent months, indicate that al-Qaida is still present in Afghanistan. Its future capabilities remain unclear. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Joe Biden's full flop on messages about Afghanistan withdrawal RELATED: All of our fact-checks about Afghanistan
|
[
"110087-proof-30-a7dc3a978d6e9b686a4b65b224e3118a.jpg"
] |
Al-Qaida is 'gone' from Afghanistan.
|
Contradiction
|
As President Joe Biden defended his administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan, he suggested that al-Qaida was no longer a threat there. 'Look, let's put this thing in perspective here,' Biden said in Aug. 20 remarks. 'What interest do we have in Afghanistan at this point with al-Qaida gone? We went to Afghanistan for the express purpose of getting rid of al-Qaida in Afghanistan, as well as getting Osama bin Laden. And we did.' Biden is wrong to say that al-Qaida is gone entirely; officials in his administration have said the terrorist group remains active. On the same day of Biden's remarks, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said: 'We know that al-Qaida is a presence, as well as ISIS, in Afghanistan and we've talked about that for quite some time. We do not believe it is exorbitantly high but we don't have an exact figure for you.' Kirby added that al-Qaida's presence isn't enough to merit a threat to the U.S. as it did 20 years ago. On Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken echoed that, saying that there are al-Qaida members in Afghanistan, but their capacity for a 9/11 type of attack has been diminished. Biden's statement that al-Qaida is 'gone' lacked that nuance and went further than his statement days earlier that al-Qaida in Afghanistan was 'degraded.' A White House spokesperson pointed to comments Biden made on Aug. 20 stating the threat of terrorism broadly, and al-Qaida specifically, remains a concern. Biden said that there was 'a greater danger from ISIS and al-Qaida and all these affiliates in other countries, by far, than there is from Afghanistan.' The U.N and Inspector General to Congress have said al-Qaida remains in Afghanistan Reports by government agencies in recent months show that al-Qaida remains a presence in Afghanistan. A United Nations report in June stated that a significant part of the leadership of al-Qaida resides in the Afghanistan and Pakistan border region. Al-Qaida is present in at least 15 Afghan provinces and 'is reported to number in the range of several dozen to 500 persons,' the report stated. While al-Qaida maintains contact with the Taliban, it is laying low, and it's longer term strategy is 'strategic patience for a period of time before it would seek to plan attacks against international targets again,' the report stated. The Inspector General to Congress compiled information from various federal agencies about operations in Afghanistan and released the information in a report this summer. The Defense Intelligence Agency told the Inspector General that the Taliban 'maintains a relationship with al-Qaida, providing safe haven for the terrorist group while publicly denying its presence in Afghanistan.' Under a February 2020 agreement between the Taliban and the United States, the Taliban was supposed to prevent al-Qaida from using Afghanistan to threaten the U.S. Therefore, the Taliban is likely downplaying its relationship with the group. Tricia Bacon, an associate professor who directs the Policy Anti-Terrorism Hub at American University, said while al-Qaida has been seriously degraded, it has also received a morale boost from the Taliban's victory. The group in Afghanistan 'is seriously weakened, but it has proven to be a resilient organization, capable of surviving despite immense counterterrorism pressure and of recovering from setbacks,' Bacon said. Following the recent statements by Biden and administration officials, a Taliban spokesperson said in an interview with Saudi Arabia's al-Hadath TV that al-Qaida is 'not present in Afghanistan in the first place,' according to the Washington Post. But the spokesperson said there may be 'family ties'' between members of the two organizations. Bacon said that the Taliban is being disingenuous and the statement does not 'accurately reflect the situation on the ground.' Laura Dugan, a professor of human security at Ohio State University, said Biden is correct in that the U.S. drove al-Qaida out of Afghanistan years ago and greatly diminished its centralized power. 'This was especially true after Osama bin Laden was killed. However, what is also true is that al-Qaida and the Taliban are closely aligned, and with the Taliban back in charge of Afghanistan, al-Qaida can move around more freely, which means that they can more easily plan large scale attacks,' Dugan said.
|
Our ruling Biden said that al-Qaida is 'gone' from Afghanistan. Biden's statement is wrong. On the same day, a Pentagon spokesperson said al-Qaida is present in Afghanistan, but that it wasn't as powerful as it was 20 years ago. Recent reports from the federal government and the U.N., as well as comments from government officials in recent months, indicate that al-Qaida is still present in Afghanistan. Its future capabilities remain unclear. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Joe Biden's full flop on messages about Afghanistan withdrawal RELATED: All of our fact-checks about Afghanistan
|
[
"110087-proof-30-a7dc3a978d6e9b686a4b65b224e3118a.jpg"
] |
A 'peer reviewed, scientific study showed that the COVID-19 vaccine causes two deaths for every three lives it saves.
|
Contradiction
|
Conservative commentator Liz Wheeler, who has 1.4 million Facebook followers, was eager to get to the first segment on her June 30 Facebook show, promising to detail new research on vaccines that she suggested might be censored. She claimed that a 'peer reviewed, scientific study showed that the COVID-19 vaccine causes two deaths for every three lives it saves.' A sign posted near Wheeler as she spoke repeated the claim more bluntly: 'COVID vax kills two people for every three saved.' A Facebook post for her show's episode was headlined: 'The Vaccine Study You're Not Allowed To See.' Calling the study 'a big deal,' Wheeler said 'this will be a test for Big Tech to see if they actually want people to know the truth, or if they're censoring true information.' But the information was not accurate. The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) What Wheeler didn't report was that two days before her video was posted on Facebook, the journal that published the study posted a notice raising serious questions about it. The study, 'The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations - We Should Rethink the Policy,' was done by three European researchers, led by Harald Walach, professor at Poznan University of Medical Sciences in Poland. The researchers said that they calculated from a large Israeli field study the number of people who needed to be vaccinated to prevent one death; and that they used the Adverse Drug Reactions database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register to get the number of vaccination cases 'reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects.' The researchers concluded: 'For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.' The European Medicines Agency, however, warns that its data on adverse reactions can't be used on its own to conclude whether a vaccine caused death: 'The information on this website relates to suspected side effects, i.e. medical events that have been observed following the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines, but which are not necessarily related to or caused by the vaccine. These events may have been caused by another illness or be associated with another medicine taken by the patient at the same time.' The study was published in the journal Vaccines on June 24. Four days later, the journal appended a note to the study, expressing concerns about the study and calling its main conclusion incorrect. The note said: 'The journal is issuing this expression of concern to alert readers to significant concerns regarding the paper cited above. Serious concerns have been raised about misinterpretation of the data and the conclusions. 'The major concern is the misrepresentation of the COVID-19 vaccination efforts and misrepresentation of the data, e.g., Abstract: 'For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.' 'Stating that these deaths linked to vaccination efforts is incorrect and distorted.' A board member of the journal, University of Oxford immunologist Katie Ewer, tweeted that she resigned the board post because of the publication. She said the study 'is grossly negligent and I can't believe it passed peer-review. I hope it will be retracted.' The journal's associate editor, Florian Krammer, a professor of vaccinology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, also tweeted that he resigned because of the study. Walach, an author of the study, told Retraction Watch, a website that reported on the aftermath of the study, that he does not agree with the expression of concern, saying 'we have used and analyzed the data correctly, and not incorrectly. But that the data are less than optimal is clear to everyone and we said so in our paper. The purpose is to generate enough momentum for governments and researchers to finally create the good data that are long overdue.' Wheeler didn't reply to a request seeking comment. With the journal backing away from the study due its data misrepresentation, and Wheeler not acknowledging that in her report, we rate Wheeler's claim Mostly False.
|
With the journal backing away from the study due its data misrepresentation, and Wheeler not acknowledging that in her report, we rate Wheeler's claim Mostly False.
|
[] |
'If we kept (the minimum wage) indexed to inflation, people would be making $20 an hour right now.
|
Contradiction
|
During a CNN town hall in Wisconsin, Joe Biden misstated an argument in favor of raising the minimum wage. Biden and many other Democrats support a phased-in minimum-wage hike to $15 an hour. That would be a significant increase from the current $7.25, a level that has been steady since 2009. Biden's American Rescue Plan includes the wage hike to $15, though it's unclear whether that provision will be included in the relief legislation now working its way through Congress. During the town hall, a member of the audience asked Biden about the wage hike proposal, 'Given the lower cost of living specifically in the Midwest, many business owners are concerned that this will put them out of business, forcing them to downsize or cut benefits,' the audience member said. 'How can you instill confidence in small businesses that this will benefit the Midwest business growth?' Biden said it was reasonable for small business owners to worry about the impact, but he sought to reassure the questioner that the positive impacts would outweigh the negative ones if the change was made gradually. 'Here's the deal,' Biden said. 'It's about doing it gradually, where it's (currently) $7.25 an hour. No one should work 40 hours a week and live in poverty. But it's totally legitimate for small business owners to be concerned about how that changes. 'If we kept (the minimum wage) indexed to inflation, people would be making $20 an hour right now,' Biden said. 'That's what it would be.' But Biden muffed his talking point. Using the inflation calculator operated by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, $7.25 in 2009 would be worth about $8.98 in 2021, which is well short of $20. Even if you indexed the minimum wage that had the most purchasing power in history - $1.60 in 1968 - the inflation-adjusted value today would be $12.27, and that's still short of $20. The White House said Biden should have referenced a different method of equalizing the minimum wage across time - if the minimum wage had been indexed for worker productivity, rather than inflation. The White House cited a specific blog post from 2020 by Dean Baker, an economist with the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research. In the post, Baker wrote that until 1968, the minimum wage did roughly increase in tandem with worker productivity increases. This pattern, he said, broke down after 1968, with worker productivity consistently rising but the value of the minimum wage declining. 'The distinction between inflation and productivity is an important one,' Baker wrote. 'If the minimum wage rises in step with inflation, we are effectively ensuring that it will allow minimum wage earners to buy the same amount of goods and services through time, protecting them against higher prices. However, if it rises with productivity, that means that, as workers are able to produce more goods and services per hour on average, minimum wage earners will be able to buy more goods and services through time.' In the post, Baker calculated that if the minimum wage had risen in step with productivity growth since 1968, 'it would be over $24 an hour today.' Baker told PolitiFact that 'the inflation adjustment can be calculated in different ways, but I can't see any way you get to $20 an hour in 2021.'
|
Our ruling Biden said that 'if we kept (the minimum wage) indexed to inflation, people would be making $20 an hour right now.' Indexing the minimum wage to inflation would have produced a wage today between $8.98 and $12.27, depending on which year you started the indexing. That's well short of the $20 Biden said. The White House said Biden should have said that if the minimum wage had been indexed to worker productivity, it would be at $20 an hour today. That's close to the $24 estimated by a liberal economist, but that's not what Biden said. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"110131-proof-33-46200cb4b0188f5d3cf934fba32b181f.jpg"
] |
'If we kept (the minimum wage) indexed to inflation, people would be making $20 an hour right now.
|
Contradiction
|
During a CNN town hall in Wisconsin, Joe Biden misstated an argument in favor of raising the minimum wage. Biden and many other Democrats support a phased-in minimum-wage hike to $15 an hour. That would be a significant increase from the current $7.25, a level that has been steady since 2009. Biden's American Rescue Plan includes the wage hike to $15, though it's unclear whether that provision will be included in the relief legislation now working its way through Congress. During the town hall, a member of the audience asked Biden about the wage hike proposal, 'Given the lower cost of living specifically in the Midwest, many business owners are concerned that this will put them out of business, forcing them to downsize or cut benefits,' the audience member said. 'How can you instill confidence in small businesses that this will benefit the Midwest business growth?' Biden said it was reasonable for small business owners to worry about the impact, but he sought to reassure the questioner that the positive impacts would outweigh the negative ones if the change was made gradually. 'Here's the deal,' Biden said. 'It's about doing it gradually, where it's (currently) $7.25 an hour. No one should work 40 hours a week and live in poverty. But it's totally legitimate for small business owners to be concerned about how that changes. 'If we kept (the minimum wage) indexed to inflation, people would be making $20 an hour right now,' Biden said. 'That's what it would be.' But Biden muffed his talking point. Using the inflation calculator operated by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, $7.25 in 2009 would be worth about $8.98 in 2021, which is well short of $20. Even if you indexed the minimum wage that had the most purchasing power in history - $1.60 in 1968 - the inflation-adjusted value today would be $12.27, and that's still short of $20. The White House said Biden should have referenced a different method of equalizing the minimum wage across time - if the minimum wage had been indexed for worker productivity, rather than inflation. The White House cited a specific blog post from 2020 by Dean Baker, an economist with the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research. In the post, Baker wrote that until 1968, the minimum wage did roughly increase in tandem with worker productivity increases. This pattern, he said, broke down after 1968, with worker productivity consistently rising but the value of the minimum wage declining. 'The distinction between inflation and productivity is an important one,' Baker wrote. 'If the minimum wage rises in step with inflation, we are effectively ensuring that it will allow minimum wage earners to buy the same amount of goods and services through time, protecting them against higher prices. However, if it rises with productivity, that means that, as workers are able to produce more goods and services per hour on average, minimum wage earners will be able to buy more goods and services through time.' In the post, Baker calculated that if the minimum wage had risen in step with productivity growth since 1968, 'it would be over $24 an hour today.' Baker told PolitiFact that 'the inflation adjustment can be calculated in different ways, but I can't see any way you get to $20 an hour in 2021.'
|
Our ruling Biden said that 'if we kept (the minimum wage) indexed to inflation, people would be making $20 an hour right now.' Indexing the minimum wage to inflation would have produced a wage today between $8.98 and $12.27, depending on which year you started the indexing. That's well short of the $20 Biden said. The White House said Biden should have said that if the minimum wage had been indexed to worker productivity, it would be at $20 an hour today. That's close to the $24 estimated by a liberal economist, but that's not what Biden said. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"110131-proof-33-46200cb4b0188f5d3cf934fba32b181f.jpg"
] |
'The minions from 'Despicable Me' are based off of these Jewish children tortured by Nazis during the Holocaust.
|
Contradiction
|
A black-and-white image of people wearing what look like helmets with a single eye hole is spreading on social media alongside a horrifying claim. 'The minions from 'Despicable Me' are based off of these Jewish children tortured by Nazis during the Holocaust,' the post says. 'Their high pitched voices in the movie are meant to represent the high pitched screams of the children during the cruel experiments.' If that seems absolutely unbelievable, it's because it is. This is misinformation, and this post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screengrab from Instagram) We found no credible sources to corroborate the claim that the animated yellow, sometimes one-eyed minions in goggles from the 'Despicable Me' movie franchise are inspired by Jewish children during the Holocaust, or that the photo pictured in the post shows Jewish children tortured during the Holocaust. Rather, we found multiple fact-checks debunking this claim - which isn't new and has circulated in several languages - as well as evidence that the photo was taken of submarine crew members decades before the Holocaust started. Matthew Sheldon, executive director of museum operations at the National Museum of the Royal Navy, told PolitiFact that the picture in the Instagram post is part of the museum's 'extensive submarine archive' and shows the crew of the World War I-era submarine C7 wearing 'Hall-Rees escape apparatus.' 'This equipment was, in fact, an early attempt to save life,' Sheldon said. The C7 submarine was commissioned in May 1907 and broken up in 1920, according to the museum. Ann Bevan, curator of the Diving Museum, which was established by the Historical Diving Society, also told PolitiFact that the photo shows a 'crew of a submarine wearing the Hall-Rees submarine escape equipment' in 1908. A website for this museum features a diving helmet that looks like the ones on the Facebook post. According to the museum, the shallow-water diving helmet was featured in two silent movies, '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea' in 1916 and 'Wet Gold' in 1921 and 'looks remarkably similar to some little yellow animated characters known as Minions.' In 2018, Vanity Fair published sketches of the Minions design. Their creators originally imagined them as short human factory workers, who then evolved into robots with a single eye that was 'meant to convey a dimming of wits.' 'Eventually, the filmmakers settled on a kind of robot-human synthesis (or, if not human, at least something more or less organic), melding the innocence of the former with the 'relatability' of the latter,' Vanity Fair said. In their final form, some of the Minions have one eye, others have two, and they all wear goggles. And among the movies that 'Minions,' a 'Despicable Me' prequel, draws inspiration from is a film that satirically alludes to Adolf Hitler. In one scene of 'Minions,' a Minion named Bob is made king of Britain and gives an unintelligible speech before a crowd. The scene mirrors one in the political satire 'The Great Dictator,' during which comedic actor Charlie Chaplin portrays a Hitler-like leader and speaks in gibberish before a large crowd, the New York Times reported. We rate this post Pants on Fire. UPDATE, May 21, 2021: The story has been updated to include comment from Matthew Sheldon, executive director of museum operations at the National Museum of the Royal Navy. The rating is unchanged.
|
We rate this post Pants on Fire. UPDATE, May 21, 2021: The story has been updated to include comment from Matthew Sheldon, executive director of museum operations at the National Museum of the Royal Navy. The rating is unchanged.
|
[] |
Aunt Jemima was photographed chained to a table.
|
Contradiction
|
When the company that makes Aunt Jemima products announced it would stop using that created name and image, in the wake of the Minneapolis police death of George Floyd, social media posts criticizing the decision claimed that the first Aunt Jemima model died a millionaire. We rated that claim False. Nancy Green, a Kentucky native and former slave, might have attained middle-class status in Chicago. But we found no evidence she was a millionaire when she passed away in 1923. Quaker Oats said it made its decision because the 130-year-old brand was based on a racial stereotype. Now comes a claim, in the form of two images, that an unidentified Aunt Jemima model worked while in chains. One image appears to be a photograph of a woman holding a plate of pancakes with one of her ankles chained to the leg of a kitchen table. The second image appears to be the same photo, but cropped so that the woman's legs are not visible. The post, with grammatical errors and misspellings, says: 'This is why this was a huge issue to change the brand/name most ppl didn't understand. I don't givea a dayum if her worth was $18 trillion her leg is chained to a fkin table. Yet when you try to find this pic you only see the picture on your right #Aunt Jemima' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The photo in question is years, not decades old. And it's not of anyone who portrayed Aunt Jemima officially. It is a self-portrait by Sally Stockhold, a white artist in Denver, portraying a version of Aunt Jemima in blackface. Stockhold's website says 'Aunt Jemima - I laughed because they paid me,' was published in 2008. It's listed in a category called, 'myselfportraits ode to icons and other absurdities.' A 2013 Denver art website described Stockhold's work as 'part stage, part social commentary, playful but never frivolous.' We rate the post False. Update, June 30: We updated the description of Stockhold's artwork.
|
We rated that claim False. Nancy Green, a Kentucky native and former slave, might have attained middle-class status in Chicago. But we found no evidence she was a millionaire when she passed away in 1923. Quaker Oats said it made its decision because the 130-year-old brand was based on a racial stereotype. Now comes a claim, in the form of two images, that an unidentified Aunt Jemima model worked while in chains. One image appears to be a photograph of a woman holding a plate of pancakes with one of her ankles chained to the leg of a kitchen table. The second image appears to be the same photo, but cropped so that the woman's legs are not visible. The post, with grammatical errors and misspellings, says: 'This is why this was a huge issue to change the brand/name most ppl didn't understand. I don't givea a dayum if her worth was $18 trillion her leg is chained to a fkin table. Yet when you try to find this pic you only see the picture on your right #Aunt Jemima' Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on November 10, 2021 in a Facebook post 'Italy drastically reduced the country's official COV1D-19 death count by over 97%. This means Covid killed fewer people than an average seasonal flu.' By Samantha Putterman • November 10, 2021 The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The photo in question is years, not decades old. And it's not of anyone who portrayed Aunt Jemima officially. It is a self-portrait by Sally Stockhold, a white artist in Denver, portraying a version of Aunt Jemima in blackface. Stockhold's website says 'Aunt Jemima - I laughed because they paid me,' was published in 2008. It's listed in a category called, 'myselfportraits ode to icons and other absurdities.' A 2013 Denver art website described Stockhold's work as 'part stage, part social commentary, playful but never frivolous.' We rate the post False. Update, June 30: We updated the description of Stockhold's artwork.
|
[] |
'The Chinese Communist Party is using Zoom as a way to spy on our citizens.
|
Contradiction
|
Efforts to minimize the spread of the coronavirus through social distancing have brought video conferencing platforms more business and, with that, more scrutiny. Zoom and other providers have experienced breakneck growth as people around the world get used to working from home and communicating with family and friends online. For Zoom, that growth has also revealed security vulnerabilities and a relationship with China that had at least one conservative pundit calling for a boycott. 'Stop using Zoom immediately,' said Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk in a tweet. 'Any tech company that aligns with China must be ex-communicated from our country. The Chinese Communist Party is using Zoom as a way to spy on our citizens.' Stop using Zoom immediately. Any tech company that aligns with China must be ex-communicated from our country The Chinese Communist Party is using Zoom as a way to spy on our citizens RT! https://t.co/nylH3ltbgI- Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 3, 2020 Kirk's tweet cited an April 3 report from researchers at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab. The report spotlighted security problems using Zoom, but it didn't look at whether China was using the tech platform 'as a way to spy on our citizens.' 'If (Kirk) is describing our findings as providing proof that the Chinese government is definitively spying on Zoom meetings, then that is inaccurate,' said Bill Marczak, a senior research fellow at Citizen Lab and co-author of the report on Zoom's encryption. A spokesperson for Zoom told us the company, which is based in San Jose, California, is not aware of any efforts by China to use its platform for espionage. The FBI and Defense Department declined to comment. Researchers found security issues with Zoom In their report, Marczak and co-author John Scott-Railton examined the encryption scheme protecting meetings hosted on Zoom. They found that Zoom 'uses non-industry-standard cryptographic techniques with identifiable weaknesses' to safeguard its conferences. The app's encryption keys - long, random strings of characters used to protect encoded data - were sometimes routed through servers in China, even when all meeting participants are outside of China. They wrote that this flaw is 'potentially concerning, given that Zoom may be legally obligated to disclose these keys to authorities in China,' where they said the company employs roughly 700 people. The company's website says it has more than 2,000 employees worldwide. A spokesperson for Kirk cited these findings, news reports about them and China's history of surveillance and of spying on U.S. companies as evidence in support of Kirk's claim. 'It's well established that China is engaged in massive amounts of domestic surveillance and has established massive controls on any data that is routed to servers hosted in China - which is exactly what Zoom has done,' the spokesperson said. The Citizen Lab report did conclude that Zoom is 'not suited for secrets.' It said governments, businesses concerned about cybercrime and espionage, health care providers, and activists, lawyers and journalists working on sensitive topics should all be especially careful. But Kirk's tweet missed another conclusion that Zoom users may find reassuring. 'For those using Zoom to keep in touch with friends, hold social events, or organize courses or lectures that they might otherwise hold in a public or semi-public venue, our findings should not necessarily be concerning,' Marczak and Scott-Railton wrote. Zoom is working to patch up security issues The Citizen Lab's findings amplified concerns that have dogged Zoom as it has gained popularity. Online trolls have learned to invade meetings and project graphic material using Zoom's screen-sharing feature, for example. The practice, known as 'Zoombombing,' has led some school districts, including in New York City, to ban the platform for online learning. Zoom has since pledged to beef up its security. In a response to the Citizen Lab's report, CEO Eric Yuan said the routing of encryption keys through China was a 'misstep' that resulted from Zoom's 'urgency to come to the aid of people around the world' as the coronavirus spread. The routing problem has since been corrected, Yuan said, adding that it was never an issue for the separate version of Zoom available to government customers. The company has also clarified its encryption practices, and Yuan said in another blog post that Zoom has paused extra features for 90 days so its engineers can focus on security fixes. 'Zoom has robust cybersecurity protection and a number of layered safeguards and built-in protections to help prevent unwanted meeting access,' a company spokesperson told us. James Andrew Lewis, director of the technology policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said concerns about Zoom strike him as 'overstated.' 'Zoom has development offices in China,' he said. 'But its backroom functions are performed by an American cloud service provider using a very secure service located here in the U.S.' More people working from home is a 'goldmine for intel agencies' that China will likely exploit, he said, but other technology companies may also face similar threats. The FBI recently issued a warning about cyber attacks that could come from the increased use of videoconferencing. Kirk overstated the Citizen Lab's findings on China Marczak and Scott-Railton wrote that the problems they identified make Zoom 'a clear target to reasonably well-resourced nation state attackers,' including China. But they never said China is spying on American citizens through Zoom, as Kirk claimed. 'We found that the Chinese government could conduct this sort of surveillance, but our methodology cannot produce a finding one way or the other about whether this surveillance is actually occurring,' Marczak told PolitiFact. He said their goal was to find vulnerabilities that could be exploited, not to catch bad actors. 'China is capable of conducting this kind of surveillance,' he said. 'The question is whether they are actually doing it. If they are doing it, ordinary people are unlikely to be targets.' Other cybersecurity experts agreed that China would not likely target the average American. 'I would suspect that if Chinese intel agencies are taking advantage of Zoom vulnerabilities, and I assume they are, they are targeting government users and business users,' said Adam Segal, director of the digital and cyberspace policy program at the Council on Foreign Relations. In past Chinese hacks involving information on ordinary American citizens - including attacks on Marriott and Equifax - the hackers were after big data sets that could be used to spot patterns in people who might be willing to spy on China's behalf, Segal said. 'You might be able to pull those things out of Zoom calls, but it would take much more work and be less reliable,' he said. It's also unlikely that China would be monitoring every U.S.-based Zoom call because of the money and manpower needed to do so, experts told us. 'In practice, the cost to do this should be high enough that China wouldn't want to use this as a mass surveillance tool, but rather a tool for targeted surveillance,' Marczak said.
|
Our ruling Kirk said, 'The Chinese Communist Party is using Zoom as a way to spy on our citizens.' The claim is based on a report from researchers at the University of Toronto. But one of the researchers told us that while they identified security issues with Zoom, whether China has exploited the platform for espionage was not something they considered. China is likely capable of using Zoom for spying, experts told us. It's not implausible that the country has tried using it to target governments, businesses and others with sensitive information. We don't know whether China has done so. But there's no proof that it has. A spokesperson for Zoom said the company isn't aware of efforts by China to tap into meetings on the platform, and experts said most ordinary Americans shouldn't have any reason to worry. We rate this statement Mostly False.
|
[
"110160-proof-37-08a48d055c8ca3bf0afe3e6dd2eb5302.jpg"
] |
'The Chinese Communist Party is using Zoom as a way to spy on our citizens.
|
Contradiction
|
Efforts to minimize the spread of the coronavirus through social distancing have brought video conferencing platforms more business and, with that, more scrutiny. Zoom and other providers have experienced breakneck growth as people around the world get used to working from home and communicating with family and friends online. For Zoom, that growth has also revealed security vulnerabilities and a relationship with China that had at least one conservative pundit calling for a boycott. 'Stop using Zoom immediately,' said Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk in a tweet. 'Any tech company that aligns with China must be ex-communicated from our country. The Chinese Communist Party is using Zoom as a way to spy on our citizens.' Stop using Zoom immediately. Any tech company that aligns with China must be ex-communicated from our country The Chinese Communist Party is using Zoom as a way to spy on our citizens RT! https://t.co/nylH3ltbgI- Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 3, 2020 Kirk's tweet cited an April 3 report from researchers at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab. The report spotlighted security problems using Zoom, but it didn't look at whether China was using the tech platform 'as a way to spy on our citizens.' 'If (Kirk) is describing our findings as providing proof that the Chinese government is definitively spying on Zoom meetings, then that is inaccurate,' said Bill Marczak, a senior research fellow at Citizen Lab and co-author of the report on Zoom's encryption. A spokesperson for Zoom told us the company, which is based in San Jose, California, is not aware of any efforts by China to use its platform for espionage. The FBI and Defense Department declined to comment. Researchers found security issues with Zoom In their report, Marczak and co-author John Scott-Railton examined the encryption scheme protecting meetings hosted on Zoom. They found that Zoom 'uses non-industry-standard cryptographic techniques with identifiable weaknesses' to safeguard its conferences. The app's encryption keys - long, random strings of characters used to protect encoded data - were sometimes routed through servers in China, even when all meeting participants are outside of China. They wrote that this flaw is 'potentially concerning, given that Zoom may be legally obligated to disclose these keys to authorities in China,' where they said the company employs roughly 700 people. The company's website says it has more than 2,000 employees worldwide. A spokesperson for Kirk cited these findings, news reports about them and China's history of surveillance and of spying on U.S. companies as evidence in support of Kirk's claim. 'It's well established that China is engaged in massive amounts of domestic surveillance and has established massive controls on any data that is routed to servers hosted in China - which is exactly what Zoom has done,' the spokesperson said. The Citizen Lab report did conclude that Zoom is 'not suited for secrets.' It said governments, businesses concerned about cybercrime and espionage, health care providers, and activists, lawyers and journalists working on sensitive topics should all be especially careful. But Kirk's tweet missed another conclusion that Zoom users may find reassuring. 'For those using Zoom to keep in touch with friends, hold social events, or organize courses or lectures that they might otherwise hold in a public or semi-public venue, our findings should not necessarily be concerning,' Marczak and Scott-Railton wrote. Zoom is working to patch up security issues The Citizen Lab's findings amplified concerns that have dogged Zoom as it has gained popularity. Online trolls have learned to invade meetings and project graphic material using Zoom's screen-sharing feature, for example. The practice, known as 'Zoombombing,' has led some school districts, including in New York City, to ban the platform for online learning. Zoom has since pledged to beef up its security. In a response to the Citizen Lab's report, CEO Eric Yuan said the routing of encryption keys through China was a 'misstep' that resulted from Zoom's 'urgency to come to the aid of people around the world' as the coronavirus spread. The routing problem has since been corrected, Yuan said, adding that it was never an issue for the separate version of Zoom available to government customers. The company has also clarified its encryption practices, and Yuan said in another blog post that Zoom has paused extra features for 90 days so its engineers can focus on security fixes. 'Zoom has robust cybersecurity protection and a number of layered safeguards and built-in protections to help prevent unwanted meeting access,' a company spokesperson told us. James Andrew Lewis, director of the technology policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said concerns about Zoom strike him as 'overstated.' 'Zoom has development offices in China,' he said. 'But its backroom functions are performed by an American cloud service provider using a very secure service located here in the U.S.' More people working from home is a 'goldmine for intel agencies' that China will likely exploit, he said, but other technology companies may also face similar threats. The FBI recently issued a warning about cyber attacks that could come from the increased use of videoconferencing. Kirk overstated the Citizen Lab's findings on China Marczak and Scott-Railton wrote that the problems they identified make Zoom 'a clear target to reasonably well-resourced nation state attackers,' including China. But they never said China is spying on American citizens through Zoom, as Kirk claimed. 'We found that the Chinese government could conduct this sort of surveillance, but our methodology cannot produce a finding one way or the other about whether this surveillance is actually occurring,' Marczak told PolitiFact. He said their goal was to find vulnerabilities that could be exploited, not to catch bad actors. 'China is capable of conducting this kind of surveillance,' he said. 'The question is whether they are actually doing it. If they are doing it, ordinary people are unlikely to be targets.' Other cybersecurity experts agreed that China would not likely target the average American. 'I would suspect that if Chinese intel agencies are taking advantage of Zoom vulnerabilities, and I assume they are, they are targeting government users and business users,' said Adam Segal, director of the digital and cyberspace policy program at the Council on Foreign Relations. In past Chinese hacks involving information on ordinary American citizens - including attacks on Marriott and Equifax - the hackers were after big data sets that could be used to spot patterns in people who might be willing to spy on China's behalf, Segal said. 'You might be able to pull those things out of Zoom calls, but it would take much more work and be less reliable,' he said. It's also unlikely that China would be monitoring every U.S.-based Zoom call because of the money and manpower needed to do so, experts told us. 'In practice, the cost to do this should be high enough that China wouldn't want to use this as a mass surveillance tool, but rather a tool for targeted surveillance,' Marczak said.
|
Our ruling Kirk said, 'The Chinese Communist Party is using Zoom as a way to spy on our citizens.' The claim is based on a report from researchers at the University of Toronto. But one of the researchers told us that while they identified security issues with Zoom, whether China has exploited the platform for espionage was not something they considered. China is likely capable of using Zoom for spying, experts told us. It's not implausible that the country has tried using it to target governments, businesses and others with sensitive information. We don't know whether China has done so. But there's no proof that it has. A spokesperson for Zoom said the company isn't aware of efforts by China to tap into meetings on the platform, and experts said most ordinary Americans shouldn't have any reason to worry. We rate this statement Mostly False.
|
[
"110160-proof-37-08a48d055c8ca3bf0afe3e6dd2eb5302.jpg"
] |
'The Chinese Communist Party is using Zoom as a way to spy on our citizens.
|
Contradiction
|
Efforts to minimize the spread of the coronavirus through social distancing have brought video conferencing platforms more business and, with that, more scrutiny. Zoom and other providers have experienced breakneck growth as people around the world get used to working from home and communicating with family and friends online. For Zoom, that growth has also revealed security vulnerabilities and a relationship with China that had at least one conservative pundit calling for a boycott. 'Stop using Zoom immediately,' said Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk in a tweet. 'Any tech company that aligns with China must be ex-communicated from our country. The Chinese Communist Party is using Zoom as a way to spy on our citizens.' Stop using Zoom immediately. Any tech company that aligns with China must be ex-communicated from our country The Chinese Communist Party is using Zoom as a way to spy on our citizens RT! https://t.co/nylH3ltbgI- Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 3, 2020 Kirk's tweet cited an April 3 report from researchers at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab. The report spotlighted security problems using Zoom, but it didn't look at whether China was using the tech platform 'as a way to spy on our citizens.' 'If (Kirk) is describing our findings as providing proof that the Chinese government is definitively spying on Zoom meetings, then that is inaccurate,' said Bill Marczak, a senior research fellow at Citizen Lab and co-author of the report on Zoom's encryption. A spokesperson for Zoom told us the company, which is based in San Jose, California, is not aware of any efforts by China to use its platform for espionage. The FBI and Defense Department declined to comment. Researchers found security issues with Zoom In their report, Marczak and co-author John Scott-Railton examined the encryption scheme protecting meetings hosted on Zoom. They found that Zoom 'uses non-industry-standard cryptographic techniques with identifiable weaknesses' to safeguard its conferences. The app's encryption keys - long, random strings of characters used to protect encoded data - were sometimes routed through servers in China, even when all meeting participants are outside of China. They wrote that this flaw is 'potentially concerning, given that Zoom may be legally obligated to disclose these keys to authorities in China,' where they said the company employs roughly 700 people. The company's website says it has more than 2,000 employees worldwide. A spokesperson for Kirk cited these findings, news reports about them and China's history of surveillance and of spying on U.S. companies as evidence in support of Kirk's claim. 'It's well established that China is engaged in massive amounts of domestic surveillance and has established massive controls on any data that is routed to servers hosted in China - which is exactly what Zoom has done,' the spokesperson said. The Citizen Lab report did conclude that Zoom is 'not suited for secrets.' It said governments, businesses concerned about cybercrime and espionage, health care providers, and activists, lawyers and journalists working on sensitive topics should all be especially careful. But Kirk's tweet missed another conclusion that Zoom users may find reassuring. 'For those using Zoom to keep in touch with friends, hold social events, or organize courses or lectures that they might otherwise hold in a public or semi-public venue, our findings should not necessarily be concerning,' Marczak and Scott-Railton wrote. Zoom is working to patch up security issues The Citizen Lab's findings amplified concerns that have dogged Zoom as it has gained popularity. Online trolls have learned to invade meetings and project graphic material using Zoom's screen-sharing feature, for example. The practice, known as 'Zoombombing,' has led some school districts, including in New York City, to ban the platform for online learning. Zoom has since pledged to beef up its security. In a response to the Citizen Lab's report, CEO Eric Yuan said the routing of encryption keys through China was a 'misstep' that resulted from Zoom's 'urgency to come to the aid of people around the world' as the coronavirus spread. The routing problem has since been corrected, Yuan said, adding that it was never an issue for the separate version of Zoom available to government customers. The company has also clarified its encryption practices, and Yuan said in another blog post that Zoom has paused extra features for 90 days so its engineers can focus on security fixes. 'Zoom has robust cybersecurity protection and a number of layered safeguards and built-in protections to help prevent unwanted meeting access,' a company spokesperson told us. James Andrew Lewis, director of the technology policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said concerns about Zoom strike him as 'overstated.' 'Zoom has development offices in China,' he said. 'But its backroom functions are performed by an American cloud service provider using a very secure service located here in the U.S.' More people working from home is a 'goldmine for intel agencies' that China will likely exploit, he said, but other technology companies may also face similar threats. The FBI recently issued a warning about cyber attacks that could come from the increased use of videoconferencing. Kirk overstated the Citizen Lab's findings on China Marczak and Scott-Railton wrote that the problems they identified make Zoom 'a clear target to reasonably well-resourced nation state attackers,' including China. But they never said China is spying on American citizens through Zoom, as Kirk claimed. 'We found that the Chinese government could conduct this sort of surveillance, but our methodology cannot produce a finding one way or the other about whether this surveillance is actually occurring,' Marczak told PolitiFact. He said their goal was to find vulnerabilities that could be exploited, not to catch bad actors. 'China is capable of conducting this kind of surveillance,' he said. 'The question is whether they are actually doing it. If they are doing it, ordinary people are unlikely to be targets.' Other cybersecurity experts agreed that China would not likely target the average American. 'I would suspect that if Chinese intel agencies are taking advantage of Zoom vulnerabilities, and I assume they are, they are targeting government users and business users,' said Adam Segal, director of the digital and cyberspace policy program at the Council on Foreign Relations. In past Chinese hacks involving information on ordinary American citizens - including attacks on Marriott and Equifax - the hackers were after big data sets that could be used to spot patterns in people who might be willing to spy on China's behalf, Segal said. 'You might be able to pull those things out of Zoom calls, but it would take much more work and be less reliable,' he said. It's also unlikely that China would be monitoring every U.S.-based Zoom call because of the money and manpower needed to do so, experts told us. 'In practice, the cost to do this should be high enough that China wouldn't want to use this as a mass surveillance tool, but rather a tool for targeted surveillance,' Marczak said.
|
Our ruling Kirk said, 'The Chinese Communist Party is using Zoom as a way to spy on our citizens.' The claim is based on a report from researchers at the University of Toronto. But one of the researchers told us that while they identified security issues with Zoom, whether China has exploited the platform for espionage was not something they considered. China is likely capable of using Zoom for spying, experts told us. It's not implausible that the country has tried using it to target governments, businesses and others with sensitive information. We don't know whether China has done so. But there's no proof that it has. A spokesperson for Zoom said the company isn't aware of efforts by China to tap into meetings on the platform, and experts said most ordinary Americans shouldn't have any reason to worry. We rate this statement Mostly False.
|
[
"110160-proof-37-08a48d055c8ca3bf0afe3e6dd2eb5302.jpg"
] |
If President Trump decides to deploy the U.S. military domestically, he would be 'mobilizing U.S. military troops on American soil for the first time since 1807.
|
Contradiction
|
Shortly after law enforcement officers were ordered to push peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square so that Donald Trump could walk from the White House to St. John's Episcopal Church for a photo opportunity, CNN anchor Erin Burnett made several mentions of a law that Trump had been considering invoking: the Insurrection Act of 1807. 'If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,' Trump said from the White House's Rose Garden, referring to the looting and other violence that followed the death in police custody of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Soon after the start of her show, 'Erin Burnett OutFront,' Burnett referred to Trump's possible use of the law. The president, she said, was 'basically saying that he is going to go ahead with an act back from 1807 for the first time, mobilizing U.S. military troops on American soil for the first time since 1807.' Burnett repeated this point several times during her show. She said that 'moments ago' Trump said that 'he is mobilizing the U.S. military for the first time since 1807 under the Insurrection Act to go into the states, to deploy them and quickly solve the problem for them, if the cities and states refuse.' She repeated this later, during an exchange with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. When Cuomo asked, 'When was the last time you saw the American military called out against Americans?' Burnett responded, '1807.' Finally, she repeated it in an exchange with former CNN anchor Bernard Shaw. She said that Trump would be 'invoking an act not invoked since 1807 to deploy U.S. military troops on American soil.' There's a problem, however. While the Insurrection Act was indeed passed and signed by President Thomas Jefferson in 1807, it has been invoked many times since then, a reality that Burnett tweeted a correction after the show. The 1807 law allows state governments to seek assistance from the federal government to put down insurrections. It also allows, in limited circumstances, the U.S. military to be deployed domestically without the consent of the state. The consensual provision was last used in May 1992, amid riots in Los Angeles after the acquittals of officers charged with the beating of Rodney King, a black motorist. The assistance was requested by then-California Gov. Pete Wilson. The provision that allows the president to override state officials has been invoked as well, historically to protect the civil rights of black Americans in the 1950s and 1960s. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy used these provisions in Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi to enforce civil rights laws, and Kennedy invoked it to send federal troops to Birmingham, Ala., during civil rights protests. After her show Burnett tweeted, 'I mistakenly said tonight that the insurrection act hasn't been invoked since 1807. That's incorrect. The last time it was used was 1992.' I mistakenly said tonight that the insurrection act hasn't been invoked since 1807. That's incorrect. The last time it was used was 1992.- Erin Burnett (@ErinBurnett) June 2, 2020
|
Our ruling Burnett said that if Trump decides to deploy the U.S. military domestically, he would be 'mobilizing U.S. military troops on American soil for the first time since 1807.' That's not correct. The law was passed in 1807, but it was last invoked in 1992. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"110170-proof-35-c187bbcdef25883439749e28110abfb3.jpg"
] |
If President Trump decides to deploy the U.S. military domestically, he would be 'mobilizing U.S. military troops on American soil for the first time since 1807.
|
Contradiction
|
Shortly after law enforcement officers were ordered to push peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square so that Donald Trump could walk from the White House to St. John's Episcopal Church for a photo opportunity, CNN anchor Erin Burnett made several mentions of a law that Trump had been considering invoking: the Insurrection Act of 1807. 'If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,' Trump said from the White House's Rose Garden, referring to the looting and other violence that followed the death in police custody of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Soon after the start of her show, 'Erin Burnett OutFront,' Burnett referred to Trump's possible use of the law. The president, she said, was 'basically saying that he is going to go ahead with an act back from 1807 for the first time, mobilizing U.S. military troops on American soil for the first time since 1807.' Burnett repeated this point several times during her show. She said that 'moments ago' Trump said that 'he is mobilizing the U.S. military for the first time since 1807 under the Insurrection Act to go into the states, to deploy them and quickly solve the problem for them, if the cities and states refuse.' She repeated this later, during an exchange with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. When Cuomo asked, 'When was the last time you saw the American military called out against Americans?' Burnett responded, '1807.' Finally, she repeated it in an exchange with former CNN anchor Bernard Shaw. She said that Trump would be 'invoking an act not invoked since 1807 to deploy U.S. military troops on American soil.' There's a problem, however. While the Insurrection Act was indeed passed and signed by President Thomas Jefferson in 1807, it has been invoked many times since then, a reality that Burnett tweeted a correction after the show. The 1807 law allows state governments to seek assistance from the federal government to put down insurrections. It also allows, in limited circumstances, the U.S. military to be deployed domestically without the consent of the state. The consensual provision was last used in May 1992, amid riots in Los Angeles after the acquittals of officers charged with the beating of Rodney King, a black motorist. The assistance was requested by then-California Gov. Pete Wilson. The provision that allows the president to override state officials has been invoked as well, historically to protect the civil rights of black Americans in the 1950s and 1960s. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy used these provisions in Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi to enforce civil rights laws, and Kennedy invoked it to send federal troops to Birmingham, Ala., during civil rights protests. After her show Burnett tweeted, 'I mistakenly said tonight that the insurrection act hasn't been invoked since 1807. That's incorrect. The last time it was used was 1992.' I mistakenly said tonight that the insurrection act hasn't been invoked since 1807. That's incorrect. The last time it was used was 1992.- Erin Burnett (@ErinBurnett) June 2, 2020
|
Our ruling Burnett said that if Trump decides to deploy the U.S. military domestically, he would be 'mobilizing U.S. military troops on American soil for the first time since 1807.' That's not correct. The law was passed in 1807, but it was last invoked in 1992. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"110170-proof-35-c187bbcdef25883439749e28110abfb3.jpg"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.