Bruce Willis' Wife Shares 'Final Update' About His Dementia Diagnosis?
On Oct. 4, 2023, the purported celebrity gossip YouTube channel Just In published a video that claimed actor Bruce Willis wife had shared a final update about his dementia diagnosis. video The clip's title read, "Bruce Willis Wife TEARFULLY Shares FINAL Update About His Dementia." The video had been viewed over 12,200 times on Just Ins YouTube channel at the time of this writing.   (@JustInCeleb/YouTube) The YouTube video also circulated on TikTok. One post we found on the platform that featured a clip of the YouTube video had received over 520,000 views at the time of this writing. Another TikTok post we found that featured a clip of the YouTube video had 91,000 views. We also found posts on other social media platforms that contained the video, like Facebook and Twitter. post post Facebook Twitter The claim was false. The video was posted after Emma Heming Willis, Willis wife, appeared on the "Today" show to discuss his health on Sept. 25, 2023. In March 2022, Willis family announced he would be retiring from acting after he was diagnosed with aphasia, a cognitive disorder that impacts a persons ability to communicate. Nearly a year later, in February 2023, the family said his condition had progressed, and that hed been diagnosed with frontotemporal dementia. appeared announced said While Willis does have health issues that have been credibly reported to the public, there is no evidence that Heming Willis had given any final update about his condition. The clip's narration, scripting, sequencing and thumbnail image all looked to have been a product of artificial intelligence (AI), video-creation tools. At the bottom of the description contained under the YouTube video, a disclaimer reads: reads Disclaimer: Content might be gossip, rumors, exaggerated or indirectly besides the truth. Viewer advised to do own research before forming their opinion. Content might be opinionated.  As we've seen with many of these AI-generated videos across multiple celebrity gossip YouTube channels, this clip contained a misleading video title with a mix of old and unrelated news, false claims and other emotionally charged moments that likely were meant to elicit angry responses in the comments. Such videos often end up with hundreds or thousands of comments from users who indicated that they had believed the misleading information presented in the clips. We've also previously fact-checked other false celebrity gossip rumors from Just In, like the false claim that actor Mel Gibson said fellow actor Ashton Kutcher was a "hidden handler" for Hollywood elites. We found there was no truth to the claim.  false claim Guy, Zoe. Bruce Willis Diagnosed With Frontotemporal Dementia. Vulture, 16 Feb. 2023, https://www.vulture.com/2023/02/bruce-willis-dementia-diagnosis.html. Jacoby, Sarah & Anna Kaplan. Bruce Willis Wife, Emma, Gives Update on His Life with Dementia in TODAY Exclusive. TODAY.Com, 26 Sept. 2023, https://www.today.com/health/news/bruce-willis-wife-gives-health-update-rcna116860. Liles, Jordan. Mel Gibson Reveals Ashton Kutcher Is a Hidden Handler for Hollywood Elites? Snopes, 19 Sept. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gibson-kutcher-handler-hollywood/. Sharf, Zack. Bruce Willis Stepping Away From Acting Following Aphasia Diagnosis. Variety, 30 Mar. 2022, https://variety.com/2022/film/news/bruce-willis-retiring-acting-apashia-1235219017/.
DidTravis Allen, arguably the most conservative candidate for California governor, donate campaign money to three of the states leading liberal Democrats? Thats the Republican-on-Republican attack levied by John Coxs campaign for governor in arecent TV adthat goes after Allen, an Orange County assemblyman whos positioned himself as a GOP populist. Heres the full text of the ad, which includes three attacks on Allen: Narrator: For Republicans, the race for governor is crystal clear: Theres conservative businessman John Cox, leading the opposition to Jerry Browns Sanctuary State and chairman of the initiative campaign to repeal the gas tax. Then theres career politician Travis Allen. He gave campaign donations to Jerry Brown. Gavin Newsom and Barbara Boxer. And on the floor vote, Allen refused to join Republicans opposing driver licenses for illegal aliens. The conservative choice is clear: John Cox for governor. The ad was paid for by John Cox for Governor 2018. Well examine the other two attacks on Allen in future fact-checks. In this piece, well focus on the claim he donated to top Democrats. Background on GOP rivals Recent polls show growing support for Coxs campaign for governor, less than a week after President Trumpendorsedthe San Diego businessman. A surveyreleased Wednesday nightfrom the Public Policy Institute of California shows Newsom, the states lieutenant governor, leading Cox, 25 percent to 19 percent. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was third, at 15 percent, followed by Allen with 11 percent,  State Treasurer John Chiang at 9 percent and former state schools chief Delaine Eastin with 6 percent. Coxand Allen have sparred at campaign events over who is the most conservative candidate. Theyve both criticized Californias Democratic leadership over the gas tax increase and sanctuary state protections. The top two candidates in the June 5 primary, regardless of party affiliation, will move on to the November runoff. Donating to Democrats? The ad accuses Allen of donating to three of the states top Democrats. The irony, of course, is that Allens run for governor has centered on criticizing those same politicians, particularly Brown and Newsom. We found clear evidence supporting the claim, though Coxs ad ignores the fact that the contributions took place nearly a decade ago, before Allen ran for elected office, and that he also donated to Republicans. Campaign finance records show that in October 2010, Allen donated $1,000 to Jerry Brown for Governor, through Wealth Strategies Group, his wealth management firm in Huntington Beach. In August 2010, Allen gave $100 to Gavin Newsom for Lieutenant Governor. And, in October 2010, he donated $250 to Barbara Boxer for Senate. SOURCE: Campaign finance records from the California Secretary of State'swebsite. Asked about this, a spokeswoman for Allens campaign said in an email that the contributions took place before Travis was an elected official, as a businessman, he purchased tickets to some events. A November 2017 Mercury-Newsarticlesummarized these and additional donations Allen made to Democrats in 2010 and 2011. He told the paper at that time: As a businessman I was invited to some events by friends, and I purchased tickets to these events. Attending these events, however, opened my eyes to the damage the Democrats were doing to California, and brought about my decision to do everything in my power to stop them, including running for public office. Similar claim In April 2016, PolitiFact California ratedMostly Truea similar claim about then Presidential candidate Donald Trump donating to Democrats. Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, at the time Trumps rival for the Republican presidential nomination, claimed Trump has given $12,000 to Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris. Campaign finance data showed the claim was accurate, though we noted Cruz left out that the donations took place long before Trump announced his run for president. The contribution to Jerry Brown took place in 2006, while the donations to the other Democrats took place in 2009, 2011 and 2013. Our ruling In a recentTV ad, John Coxs campaign for governor claimed rival GOP candidate Travis Allen donated to three of Californias top Democrats. Campaign records prove the claim, though the contributions took place a decade ago, before Allen entered politics. The statement is accurate but needs this clarification. We rate it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In April 2022, a picture was circulated on social media that supposedly showed U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., making a "white power" gesture during a Senate hearing or vote to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination to the Supreme Court. This example was shared on Twitter:  While the photograph is real, it was not taken during a hearing or vote on Jackson's confirmation, and there's no evidence that Blackburn was intentionally "throwing a white power sign" with her hand.   The picture appears to have been taken from video footage of an April 7, 2022, Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Gen. Mark Milley. Blackburn posted a video of herself questioning these officials to her own Twitter account. The hand position above can be seen around the 1:30 mark of the following video.   While what is more generally known in the U.S. as the "OK" hand symbol has truly been adopted (or co-opted) by some white supremacists, not every instance of this gesture is necessarily related to a hateful ideology. In most cases, the OK symbol simply means "OK." The same gesture has also been used as part of a game and by Kappa Alpha Psi, a Black fraternity that was formed in 1911. In other cases, someone might rest their hand in this position without any thought or meaning behind it.  "OK" hand symbol adopted (or co-opted) by some white supremacists, used as part of a game Kappa Alpha Psi, a Black fraternity that was formed in 1911 When we watched the entirety of the six-minute-long video of Blackburn's questioning, it seemed most plausible that Blackburn's hand position falls into the latter category: a random, momentary hand movement without any meaning behind it. Blackburn's questioning Washington Post reported But as the first Black woman nominated to the high court, Jackson also bears certain burdens that have become evident during her confirmation hearings. She has been subjected to questioning from some Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee that has been explicitly or implicitly all about race. She has been asked about critical race theory and the history of Americas slaveholding past and whether she has been too lenient in her sentencing as a trial judge  issues that are cultural flash points in todays caustic political debate but the first two of which have little to do with the actual work of the Supreme Court. During Jackson's hearing, Blackburn asked the judge to define the word "woman" and accused Jackson of being an advocate for judges to consider critical race theory when considering sentencing. Blackburn voted against Jackson's nomination along with all but three of her Republican colleagues. woman judges to consider critical race theory When this image was shared with the false claim that it showed Blackburn during Jackson's hearing, some social media users may have been primed to believe that Blackburn was acting out of some sort of racial malice. This, in turn, made it seem plausible, to some, that Blackburn was flashing a white power sign. But the image shown above was taken at an entirely different Senate hearing, one that was far less racially charged.  The claim that Blackburn made a white power gesture at Jackson's confirmation hearing (or vote) is false. While this is a real image of Blackburn, it comes from a different Senate hearing and no evidence has been provided to suggest that this was anything other than an inadvertent hand position.  Analysis | Jackson Endures Questioning with Racial Overtones from GOP Senators. Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/23/jackson-endures-questioning-with-racial-overtones-gop-senators/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2022. Democrats Dilemma: Back Bidens Pentagon Budget or Supersize It. POLITICO, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/05/biden-pentagon-defense-budget-00022928. Accessed 11 Apr. 2022. Fact Check-Photo of Sen. Marsha Blackburn Was Not Captured at Justices Brown Confirmation. Reuters, 11 Apr. 2022. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-blackburn-miscaptioned-idUSL2N2W913W. Phillips, Steve. Ketanji Brown Jackson Hearing Reveals Republicans Racist Fears. The Guardian, 25 Mar. 2022. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/25/ketanji-brown-jackson-hearing-reveals-republicans-racist-fears. Remarks by President Biden, Vice President Harris, and Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on the Senates Historic, Bipartisan Confirmation of Judge Jackson to Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The White House, 8 Apr. 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/04/08/remarks-by-president-biden-vice-president-harris-and-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-on-the-senates-historic-bipartisan-confirmation-of-judge-jackson-to-be-an-associate-justice-of-the-supreme-court/. Top Biden Defense Officials Admit Administration Was Wrong To Share Intelligence With Chinese. U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, 7 Apr. 2022, https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/2022/4/top-biden-defense-officials-admit-administration-was-wrong-to-share-intelligence-with-chinese. The conservative group Turning Point USA created a meme that pushes a sophomoric and factually lacking political argument. The meme in question, watermarked with the logo of Turning Point USA's political action committee (Turning Point Action), makes two claims. First, it states that the year 2019 was the first year the United States achieved energy independence since 1957. Second, it argues that "in only ten days" Joe Biden "sent us back 50 years," implying policies enacted in the first 10 days of his administration reversed American energy independence: political action committee   Turning Point Action's graphic, it bears highlighting, makes no reference to the year 2020, despite the fact that President Donald Trump was in office that year. The claim about 2019 being the first year in which the U.S. achieved energy independence since 1957 is true  so long as we understand what the term "energy independence" really means. It means that the U.S. produced more energy than it consumed. Most importantly, from an energy security perspective, energy independence does not mean that the U.S. doesn't import foreign oil or isn't fundamentally reliant on foreign sources of energy. is true In 2019, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. imported 9.1 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of oil from about 90 countries, though at the same time it also exported 8.5 MMb/d of oil to about 190 countries. By email, Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and energy systems analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, explained that "our local production does not meaningfully insulate us from potential future global oil price shocks."  according Zeke Hausfather The energy independence experienced by the U.S. in 2019 was driven by record levels of total fossil fuel exports from the U.S. That record was set as part of a long-term trend dating back to 2006 and 2008, according to the EIA: according Domestic crude oil production has increased since 2008 and natural gas production has increased since 2006. The increases in crude oil production and the easing of restrictions on crude oil exports in December 2015 have contributed to increases in crude oil exports. Increases in natural gas production along with increases in liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity have contributed to increases in natural gas exports in recent years. In 2011, the United States became a net exporter of petroleum products for the first time since at least 1949. In 2017, the United States became a net exporter of natural gas for the first time since the late 1950s. In 2019, U.S. total annual energy exports exceeded total annual energy imports for the first time in 67 years, and the United States became a net total energy exporter.   The Turning Point meme disregards entirely the existence of the year 2020. The omission of 2020 masks not only a decline in U.S. fossil fuel production that occurred, it also conceals a larger truth about U.S. presidents and the global energy market: Neither they nor their policies have a significant effect on the market compared to other global factors. a decline A significant factor in allowing the U.S. to increase its energy exports has been the rising cost of crude oil globally. Technological innovations like fracking and horizontal drilling have, in recent years, allowed the U.S. to exploit fossil fuel reserves that were previously inaccessible, but these technologies add cost. A high-cost, high-demand energy economy  like the one present during the record-setting year of 2019  benefits the U.S. energy sector because it makes American fossil fuel exports financially viable. The flip side is that the viability of U.S. exports depends in large measure on the going rate for a barrel of oil. If the cost is too low, U.S. drilling operations become financially uncompetitive and exports drop off. The year 2020 saw a historic drop in the price of oil. add cost historic drop "In 2020, U.S. oil production fell by around 8% relative to 2019," Hausfather told Snopes. "This was primarily due to falling global oil prices making relatively high-cost US shale oil production uncompetitive." The drop in demand, and then price, was not the result of any policy decision; it was the result of a massive global pandemic. In a Feb. 3, 2021, news release, Acting EIA Director Stephen Nalley explained that 'the pandemic triggered an historic energy demand shock that led to ... decreases in energy production, and sometimes volatile commodity prices in 2020.'" news release Indeed, this volatility resulted in times during 2020  a year in which Joe Biden was not president  when the U.S. dipped into consuming more energy that it produced. In July and August 2020, the U.S. was not energy independent, at least on monthly terms. By Turning Point USA's logic, this would mean that two months of Trump "sent us back 50 years" in terms of energy policy. In reality, the actions of any U.S. president cannot affect rapid change in the global energy market, and the effect of any domestic policy changes are dwarfed by global factors outside any one president's control. July and August As previously discussed, the U.S. had already experienced at least a brief period of energy "dependence" before Biden took office. While the most recent month for which we have data  October 2020  indicates the U.S. was producing slightly more energy than it consumed toward the end of Trump's presidency, U.S. oil production has been dropping off and global demand remains depressed. These trends, which predate the Biden administration, are unlikely to change anytime soon. October 2020 It will take a while for the energy sector to get to its new normal, said the EIA's Nalley in February 2021. In its 2021 "Global Outlooks" annual report, the EIA argued that "total U.S. energy consumption will return to 2019 levels by 2029, though that is highly dependent on the pace of U.S. economic recovery." In terms of energy production, "EIA projects that the United States will continue to export more petroleum and other liquids than it imports, but the balance of imports to exports will be highly sensitive to supply, demand, and price factors." said argued The bottom line, according to the Breakthrough Institutes' Hausfather, is that "oil production changes in 2020 and 2021 are driven by larger changes in global demand and oil prices, rather than anything that either the Trump or Biden administration has done." Because the meme correctly states that 2019 was the first year the U.S. achieved energy independence in decades, but because it falsely implies a connection between the Biden administration and post-2019 trends in the global energy market that predate his time in office and are independent of the actions of either Trump or Biden, we rank its claims "false." The Iranian missile strikes launched against U.S. forces in Iraq inspired the spread of false and inaccurate claims on Facebook, with one post taking aim at former President Barack Obama. The missiles that were launched at American forces in Iraq from Iran, were funded by Barack Obama, with American tax dollars. Let that sink in, said a Jan. 8Facebook postfrom a page that calls itself Conservative Headquarters. A text image posted to Facebook on Jan. 8, 2020 contains a claim that we rate False. The post, with over 19,000 shares, was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnership with Facebook.) It cites a2016 articlefrom the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website. But the Free Beacon post  from nearly four years ago  doesn't allege what the Facebook image did. There is no evidence that the Iranian missiles were paid for by U.S. taxpayers. The Facebook post, likeotherpostsandclaimswevefact-checkedbefore, misrepresents terms of the Iran nuclear deal that Obama signed on behalf of the United States in 2015. The deal with Iran was promoted by Obama, but it was also signed by China, Russia, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, with assistance from the European Union. Thedealallowed Iran to regain access to some of its own assets, which had been frozen as an economic sanction levied in retaliation for the countrys pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The United States and other countries lifted the sanctions and freeze on funds after international inspectors verified in 2016 that Iran was doing enough to curb its nuclear program. So the money was Irans. It wasnt handed to Iran by the United States or Obama, nor was it funded by U.S. taxpayers. Its not clear what ultimately happened to the funds. InJanuary 2016, then-Secretary of State JohnKerry said he expected that some of the money would end up with organizations involved in terrorism. But theres no evidence that the money was behind the strike in Iraq. On Jan. 5, after a U.S. airstrike killed top Iranian military leader Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Iransaidit would no longer comply with the limits the deal placed on its ability to enrich uranium. In addition to the unfreezing of assets, the United States did provide Iran $1.7 billion as part of a settlement ending a legal dispute. That money was part of a cash transfer that theCongressional Research Service reviewed. It resolved an arms contract between the United States and Iran that predated the Iranian revolution in 1979. Iran had paid for military equipment, but it was never delivered. As wevenotedbefore, there was $400 million in that account as of 1990, and negotiators agreed that accrued interest would add $1.3 billion to the amount. The United States sent the money to Iran in euros, Swiss francs and other currencies. But this was a repayment, meaning the United States was giving Iran its money back with interest. And while the interest came from a governmentfundmaintained by taxpayer dollars, the money being reimbursed originated with Iran, not the U.S. taxpayer. And again, theres no evidence that this money ultimately went toward the recent missile strikes. A Facebook post said, The missiles that were launched at American forces in Iraq from Iran, were funded by Barack Obama, with American tax dollars. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal was signed by multiple nations, and it did not involve the United States or Obama cutting a check to Iran. The funds Iran received were its own frozen assets. American tax dollars were never part of the deal. A separate payment that went to Iran under Obama was to settle a decades-old dispute over U.S. military equipment that Iran paid for but never received. We rate this statement False. Clarification and update, Jan. 10, 2020: The Washington Free Beacon story cited by the author of the viral image never alleged that taxpayer dollars were used to fund the missiles launched at American forces in Iraq. An original version of this story may have been unclear on this point. Supporters of a California ballot measure that would remove some of Proposition 13s tax protections say claims shared thousands of times on Facebook and other social media platforms have distorted their initiative. The campaign for theCalifornia Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020, also known as the split-roll measure,is still gathering signatures to qualify for the November ballot. It is backed by a group of union and social justice organizations. If approved by voters, the measure would hike taxes on factories, stores and other commercial and industrial real estate by requiring they pay property tax based on current market value rather than the value of the property when it was purchased. It would raise an estimated $7.5 billion to $12 billion annually, according to ananalysisby the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office. The money would be distributed to schools and local governments. The proposed ballot measure, however, would not touch tax protections for homeowners. Yet many claims on social media suggest the initiative would repeal all parts of Prop. 13, stoking concerns that residential property taxes could spike. Heres one example posted on Facebook Dec. 31, 2019:  A similar Facebook postby Bakersfield Tuff, a media company focused on racing and rodeo, was shared more than 2,200 times. Others have appeared on the platforms Next Door and We Chat, according to the campaign for the initiative. Do these claims distort the truth? We set out on a fact check to find out. Background on Prop. 13 In 1978, voters approved Prop. 13, which slashed property taxes and limited how much they could go up. It also tied tax rates to a propertys purchase price, rather than to the fluctuations of Californias real estate market, ensuring homeowners greater financial stability. The lawremains popularamong homeowners and business groups, who argue it allows neighborhoods to stay intact and older residents on fixed-incomes to remain in their homes rather than being forced out by high tax bills. Groups such asCalifornians to Stop Higher Property Taxeshave warned that removing Prop. 13s commercial tax protections will lead companies to pass along any increased tax burden to consumers. Critics of Prop. 13, on the other hand, say the law has cut too deeply into the foundation of tax revenue for local governments. Social Media Claims Completely False The campaign spearheading the November ballot measure contacted PolitiFact about the social media claims. They are completely false, said Alex Stack, spokesperson for theinitiative. It would completely protect and exempt all residential property, that means homeowners, renters and seniors. Thats backed up by the initiatives officialtitle and summaryprepared by the Attorney Generals office. That document says the measure exempts residential properties; agricultural properties; and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined value of $3 million or less. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli) Becerra's Role The social media posts claimed Becerra was putting together plans to eliminate Prop. 13. Theres no evidence to substantiate that. Becerra and others attorneys general, however, have been criticized for drafting misleading ballot measure titles and summaries. For example,Becerra wasaccused of giving an earlier version of this measure a friendly write-up. But attorneys general do not initiate ballot measures. A spokesperson for Becerra declined to directly address the social media posts. Wesley Hussey, a political science professor at Sacramento State University, said the claim about Becerra planning to repeal Prop. 13 is clearly wrong and described the rest of the information as cleverly fuzzy. Its very intelligently written, he said of the posts, suggesting they may have originated with a political operative. Only one or two spots are wrong. A lot is political opinion. Theres no doubting the ballot measures significance, Hussey added. It would be a dramatic revision to Prop. 13. If passed, it would be by far the biggest change weve seen since voters approved the law, he said. Keith Smith is a political science professor at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, where he studies elections and voting behavior. He agreed the claim about Becerra was technically wrong. But given that the initiative represents a big change to Prop. 13, some voters may see it as a gateway to repealing the measure altogether. Asked if social media posts were accurate, he replied: It depends on your perspective. Is [Prop. 13] going away? No, its not going away. Is [the ballot measure] proposing to do away with some aspect of Prop. 13 that currently exists? Yes. The claims published on Facebook and other sites, Smith explained, could be more convincing to voters than any details in the ballot measure. Earlier this month,ABC 10 Sacramento examined similar claimsand found theres no effort to eliminate Prop. 13. Adding to the confusion about the proposed November ballot measure, theres a voter initiative on Californias March primary ballot calledProposition 13, the School and College Facilities Bond. But it has nothing to do with the landmark measure of the same name passed four decades ago. A spokesman for the California Secretary of States Office said that the numbers assigned to propositions are reused through the years, sometimes leading to duplicates. Our Ruling Social media posts claimed a November ballot measure would repeal Californias Prop. 13, and that Attorney General Becerra is putting together plans to eliminate the historic law. The proposed measure would undo Prop. 13s tax protections for commercial and industrial properties with a value over $3 million. It would be a major change to the law. But homeowners, small businesses and agricultural properties would not lose their Prop. 13 tax safeguards. Thats spelled out in the measures official statetitle and summary document. While Becerras office writes the legal titles and summaries for voter initiatives, the attorney general does not put forward ballot measures. Theres no evidence Becerra is trying to eliminate Prop. 13. In the end, the social media posts capture the real concern about potential changes to Prop. 13, but they also greatly misrepresent the specific changes the November ballot measure would make to it. We rate their claims about repealing Prop. 13 as False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Read more about Prop. 13, its history and efforts to change it in'The Block That Prop. 13 Built,' a collaboration between CapRadio, CALmattersand public radio stations across California. Email us at[email protected]with feedback or contact us onTwitterorFacebook. Also, were starting a new project calledAsk PolitiFact California.Is there something in California government or politics that we should fact-check next? Send us a question, and one of our reporters and fact-checkers might reach out to find the answer. The Irish wolfhound,renowned for its large size,is a breed that has captured the hearts of many dog enthusiasts around the world. In September 2023, a photograph allegedly captured in 1902 and depicting what appeared to be such a wolfhound but instead sometimes calling it the "last giant Irish Greyhound" went viral on social media. (We should note there is no "Irish Greyhound" breed; however, greyhounds exist and can be found, among other places, at Ireland's famousracing competitions.) Irish wolfhound viral social media greyhounds racing competitions No sure if this belongs herebyu/Xconvik inmegalophobia No sure if this belongs here u/Xconvik megalophobia  Although some users claimed the in-question image was generated by AI, others were amazed at the dog's size. For instance, the image was posted on the AI Generated Nonsense Facebook page with the caption, "The last giant Irish grey hound." posted   We used Google reverse image search to track down the source of the image. One post from Sept. 3, 2023, shared on 9GAG,an online platform and social media website,read, "A good boy, the last giant Irish wolfhound in 1902." However, in the comments section we found a remark from the author's account that admitted the picture was created with Midjourney,a generative artificial intelligence (AI) program: image search post Hi, I'm op, I put in the tag AI. I made this with Midjourney. (@themaskedgypsi) themaskedgypsi We then found the image was originally posted on Aug. 31, 2023, on the Facebook group Cursed AI, by Antoine Jo. The group's name and description also indicated the picture was AI-generated: posted Beware, these creations may haunt your dreams and unravel your sanity. Step into the eerie world of AI-generated cursed art, where machines possess powers to create twisted and terrifying masterpieces. Join our community of art lovers with a taste for the strange and share your twisted creations. These disturbingly beautiful images crafted by AI will leave you questioning the very nature of technology and its place in our world. Enter at your own risk. Moreover, AI or Notand Illuminarty tools confirmed our findings. AI or Not Illuminarty   (AI or Not screenshot) If you don't want to be misled byAI-generatedimages and videos, you should read our tipshere. AI-generated here In late 2019, readers asked us about blog posts that were widely shared on social media and falsely claimed that the reality television star Duane Chapman, known as "Dog the Bounty Hunter," had died either by suicide or from a pulmonary embolism.  Those reports were false. Beginning on Nov. 20, admirers of Chapman and his late wife, Beth, who died in June after herself being the subject of death hoaxes, began posting tributes to him and sharing one of two blog posts.  hoaxes The first purported to be hosted by a website with the domain name whatnow.actual-events.com, but when internet users clicked on the story on social media, they were redirected to the domain newspanel.suzeraincollections.com. There, the story carried the headline "Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Pulmonary Embolism. He Didn't Survive His Second Attack. He Was 66 -- WGN."  first   The highly dubious website falsely attributed the claim about Chapman's death to WGN America, a real U.S. television network that broadcast the Chapmans' most recent reality show "Dog's Most Wanted." The hoax article also misleadingly used WGN America's logo in a sharebait video that purported to be a television news report about Chapman's death, but that paused after a few seconds and required users to share the article on social media in order to continue watching:   In reality, WGN America had no connection to the story and did not report on Chapman's death in November 2019, because Chapman did not die in November 2019. The specific claim that Chapman had died from a pulmonary embolism (a blocked artery in the lungs) was rather insidious. At first glance, it appeared especially plausible to many fans of the television star because he was in fact diagnosed with that very problem in September 2019. diagnosed The second blog post shared by social media users was even more distasteful than the first. It falsely and misleadingly used the logo of BBC News, a highly reputable and widely trusted information source, to report that Chapman had taken his own life.  In this instance, social media users shared an article that appeared to be hosted on the domain bbc-newsroom.actualeventstv.com, but which redirected to news-room.easystepsdiy.info. On social media, the post carried the headline "Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Suicide After Depression Attack on His Sickness -- BBC News" but when users redirected to the source, the article's headline proclaimed: shared proclaimed "Breaking: (Actual Suicide Video) Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Suicide After Depression Attack on His Sickness -- BBC News." Despite the extremely distasteful claim that the video in the article contained footage of Chapman's suicide, it contained nothing of the sort and, just as in the first article, the video stopped after a second or two and required viewers to share the post on social media in order to continue watching.     The claim that Chapman had taken his own life was, like the claim he had died of a pulmonary embolism, particularly insidious. In the season finale of "Dog's Most Wanted," broadcast by WGN America on Nov. 6, Chapman spoke about the recent death of his wife from cancer, and the considerable difficulty he was experiencing in coping with her loss.  At one moment in the episode, he reportedly discussed how he had contemplated taking his own life, such was his grief. People magazine quoted Chapman as saying: People "I just hope that I dont live very much longer without her, because now she made the first step, shes through the gate," he added. She paved a way for me. I want to take a [god damn] pain pill so bad. I feel like if I did something to myself right now and passed away suicidal and I got to heaven and was like, Hi honey, and would she go, You [dumb ass], why would you do that? Or would she go, Wow, youre here. Ill be like Of course Im here. You left me. Im here. So, am I obligated to do that?  Because of that widely reported revelation, a report that Chapman had died by suicide would have appeared somewhat plausible to many readers.  The dubious nature of the websites involved, and the absence of any corroborating evidence or reports by actual news organizations, meant that some readers would have immediately recognized the stories as hoaxes. However, a significant number were taken in by them, and shared them on social media, to the extent that Chapman himself intervened. He provided the gossip website TMZ a photograph of himself holding the Nov. 19 edition of the Denver Post, and a handwritten sign that read "I'm alive!" Chapman then posted a screenshot of that article to his own Instagram page the next day. photograph Instagram If you need help, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-8255. Or contact Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741. Kasprak, Alex. "Outdated: Beth Chapman Death Hoax."
 Snopes.com. 22 April 2019. Lee, Ashley. "Dog the Bounty Hunter Reveals Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis."
 The Los Angeles Times. 28 September 2019. Dugan, Christina. "Dog the Bounty Hunter Contemplates Suicide After Wife Beth's Death on 'Dog's Most Wanted' Finale."
 People. 6 November 2019. TMZ. "Dog the Bounty Hunter: Nope, He's Not Dead...Look, I'm Alive!"
 20 November 2019. In late March 2021, Facebook users shared a copypasta meme promising that Tim Hortons, a Canadian fast food chain, would give away a hamper full of "surprises that will make your heart flutter" and a $60 dollar gift card in commemoration of the company's 57th anniversary. All users had to share the post and comment on it. Here's an example of the post, with the user's name cropped out for privacy:   "Tim Hortons is going to celebrate its 57th anniversary on March 24, 2021, and In order to help our loyal customers every single person who has shared & commented before 5PM Wednesday will be sent one of these hampers containing a $60 gift-card plus surprises that will make your heart flutter!" Tim Hortons does offer occasional promotions on its official Facebook page, but those promotions don't involve prompting customers to share posts or comment on posts. Facebook page The post pictured above isn't a legitimate offer from Tim Hortons. It's a type of scam the Better Business Bureau calls "like farming." The purpose of this type of scam is as follows, according to the BBB: like farming As with many scams, like-farming has several different aims. When scammers ask you to register in order to win something or claim an offer, this is a way to steal your personal information. Other versions can be more complex. Often, the post itself is initially harmless  albeit completely fictional. But when the scammer collects enough likes and shares, they will edit the post and could add something malicious, such as a link to a website that downloads malware to your machine. Other times, once scammers reach their target number of likes, they strip the pages original content and use it to promote spammy products. They may also resell the page on the black market. These buyers can use it to spam followers or harvest the information Facebook provides. During a meeting with the San Antonio City Council, former mayor Henry Cisneros made a pitch for a new transportation plan that emphasizes roads over public mass transit. Cisneros, who served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Bill Clinton, highlighted the need for more money to go toward transportation and explained how this kind of investment could transform the city. We are a poor city, Cisneros said of San Antonio. We have the lowest per capita income of any major Texas city. We ran the numbers, and the latest figures show that San Antonio has a lower per capita income than some, but not all, of the states most populous cities. Cisneros did not return a request for comment seeking clarification on his definition of a major Texas city. To be clear: there is no universal definition of a major city, so we looked at Texas cities with a population estimate of at least 500,000 in 2018. Census figures show rankings To check this claim, we looked at yearly estimates of per capita income from the Census Bureaus American Community Survey. Per capita income is the mean income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group, according to the Census Bureau. In this case, those groups are Texas cities. The per capita income is calculated by dividing the aggregate income of a particular group by the total population in that group. The final figure is rounded to the nearest whole dollar. In 2018, the per capita income in Texas was $30,641. In the United States, it was $33,831. Looking at individual Texas cities reveals a wide range of values, from $65,743 in The Woodlands, a master planned community north of Houston, to $15,369 in Pharr, a city on the Texas-Mexico border east of McAllen. In San Antonio, per capita income in 2018 was $24,684. San Antonio is the second most populous city in the state (1.5 million), preceded by Houston (2.3 million) and followed in order by Dallas (1.3 million), Austin (964,254), Fort Worth (895,008) and El Paso (840,758), according to 2018 population figures. Heres the per capita income in 2018 in these cities, presented from highest to lowest: An analysis of the rankings of these cities each year from 2010 through 2018 shows that San Antonio is low on the list, followed by El Paso. Another way to assess income in a community is to look at median household income or median family income. Median household income includes the income of the householder and anyone else living in the home over 15 years old. This figure is different than median family income, according to the Census Bureau: Because many households consist of only one person, average household income is usually less than average family income. Median family income looks at incomes of all members 15 years old and over related to the householder. In 2018, the median household income in San Antonio was $49,024, lower than all of the six most populous Texas cities besides El Paso ($45,031). San Antonios median family income was $60,689 in 2018, a higher figure than Dallas ($58,835), Houston ($56,693) and El Paso ($50,245). Poverty in San Antonio Cisneros made this claim after stating that San Antonio is a poor city, so we also looked at poverty data available from the Census Bureau for the 10 most populous cities in the state. In 2018 in San Antonio, about 19% of its population was living below the poverty line  more than any of the other cities with populations over 500,000. Take at look at each city and the percent of its population below the poverty line, ordered from highest to lowest: Another factor worth mentioning here is cost of living. San Antonio may be among the cities with the lowest per capita income, but the cost of living is also on the lower end. The Economic Policy Institutes Family Budget Map shows an estimated cost of living for a two-parent, two-child family in counties across the state. Here is the cost of living per year in the predominate county in each city with a population over 500,000, in order from highest to lowest: Our ruling Cisneros said that San Antonio has the lowest per capita income of any major Texas city. San Antonio is among the six most populous Texas cities with the lowest per capita income. El Paso has consistently recorded a lower per capita income than San Antonio. We rate this claim Mostly True. On 16 April 2017 Politicalo.com published an article suggesting that the President's son Eric Trump claimed his father was going to discontinue taxation on wealthy Americans, thereby rendering debate over the elder Trump's tax returns irrelevant: Politicalo.com article As always, his son Eric was there to provide a helping hand in defending his father. During an brief phone interview with KYXL Radio based out of Orlando, Florida, President Trumps second son argued that his fathers tax return is irrelevant, largely because he knows all there is to know about following the letter of the law, especially when it comes to paying taxes. He said, When you come from a background like the one my father comes from, you have to know all there is about paying taxes and doing your part to make this country a better place. Eric continued, And while were on the subject, I kind of have to say, its funny how taxes work. They sort of punish the hardest working and most productive members of our society while taking nothing from those who would rather be lazy and beg on the streets. Thats kind of not fair. What he have here is a system that flat out punishes those who want to contribute and make their lives better and at the same time, rewards those who want to be nothing more than dead weight. The worst part is, Im not saying something thats revolutionary here; this system has been in place ever since the country was established. My father, regardless of the fact that hes president, is just one person out of millions of those who are capable enough to be successful but are simultaneously struck down by our tax system. Thats a catastrophe ... At the end of the day, its irrelevant whether my father choses to disclose his tax return or not. It wont matter soon anyway Although Newslo (and its sibling sites Religionlo, Politicops, and Politicalo) are often identified as fake news by social media users, the claim was picked up by the hyper-partisan web site Democratic Moms and spread with fewer obvious red flags. Newslo and related sites normally start each article with a paragraph of factual information followed by the embellishments featured in its headlines. Newslos "hybrid" fake news sites include a clickable feature enabling readers to "show facts" or "hide facts." When a reader clicks "show facts," the factual portions of the article are highlighted. However, by default, all articles first appear in "hide facts" mode: Newslo Religionlo Politicops Politicalo Democratic Moms fake news   As the article indicated, President Trump tweeted about his tax returns and currency manipulation on 16 April 2017: Why would I call China a currency manipulator when they are working with us on the North Korean problem? We will see what happens!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 16, 2017 April 16, 2017  I did what was an almost an impossible thing to do for a Republican-easily won the Electoral College! Now Tax Returns are brought up again?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 16, 2017 April 16, 2017  But as the "Show Facts" button demonstrated when activated, the Eric Trump's purported statements on taxation and wealth were fabricated: