Wolf Kill
Claim:  Photograph shows hunters posing with a large cache of killed wolves. REAL PHOTOGRAPH; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2012] Look at these 2 xxxxing bastards. Killing the great wolves. Spread this pic all the world people. This slaughter has got to stop.     Origins:   Although the specific origins of this photograph are still unknown to us (the location is often identified as being Newfoundland), the animals pictured here appears to be coyotes rather than wolves.  In many parts of the United States and Canada, coyote hunting is completely legal: Newfoundland coyotes coyote hunting legal The status of coyotes varies depending on state and local laws. In some states, including most western states, coyotes are classified as predators and can be taken throughout the year whether or not they are causing damage to livestock. In other states, coyotes may be taken only during specific seasons and often only by specific methods, such as trapping. Night shooting with a spotlight is usually illegal. Some state laws allow only state or federal agents to use certain methods (such as snares) to take coyotes. Some states have a provision for allowing the taking of protected coyotes (usually by special permit) when it has been documented that they are preying on livestock. In some instances producers can apply control methods, and in others, control must be managed by a federal or state agent. Some eastern states consider the coyote a game animal, a furbearer, or a protected species. In some areas coyote hunting is actively encouraged as a means of culling the animals to control overpopulation and keep them from preying on livestock (and other native animals, such as deer), with some locations offering bounties to coyote hunters.  Chippewa County, Minnesota, for example, enacted such a bounty in 2011: The Chippewa County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to enact a $10 bounty on coyotes from Dec. 1 through April 1 of each year. The commissioners explained that cattle and sheep producers had been complaining about coyotes attacking their younger livestock. They also said hunters had expressed concern that a coyote overpopulation was causing a decrease in deer population, because the coyotes were preying on fawns. To claim the bounty on a coyote, it must be killed through legal means through trapping or shooting in Chippewa County and brought to the Sheriffs Office in Montevideo. A hole will be punched in the animal's ear to indicate that a bounty has been paid, and then the hunter may sell the pelt, which the commissioners estimated to be worth around $15. Hunters must also report where in the county the coyote was killed. No limit was set on  the amount of coyotes a person can collect a bounty on. David Trauba,  Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Area supervisor at the Lac Qui Parle  Wildlife Management  Area expressed concerns over the bounty. "They're unprotected  you can hunt them all year," Trauba said. "There are plenty of coyote hunters, this isn't going to bring in more, but now we're going to be paying for them." Utah also has such a bounty system in place and in 2012 has been considering increasing its payment to coyote hunters: Coyotes could wind up with a price on their head, with one lawmaker looking to pay $50 for each pair of ears from animals that have been shot or trapped, a plan that could encourage hunters to kill more than 20,000 of the animals. Sen. Ralph Okerlund says coyotes are jeopardizing Utah deer herds and doing extensive damage to sheep and cattle herds and is proposing raising the bounty. "We've got a lot more coyotes than we've got livestock and wildlife now and we need to do something about that," the Monroe Republican said. "What we're hoping is this will encourage a lot more people to go out and hunt these animals." There already is a smaller bounty program in place. Currently, hunters or trappers in certain counties that turn in a pair of coyote ears can be paid $20: $10 from the county, matched by $10 from the state. But Okerlund said when gas and supplies are taken into account $20 isn't enough incentive to exterminate this member of the dog family. His SB245 seeks to raise the bounty, using the revenue from a $5 increase in fees for hunting licenses and additional funds from the state. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources also does coyote control and has spent $3.4 million over the past six years hiring trappers and aerial hunters to kill the predators, focusing efforts during the breeding season. Okerlund said he decided to sponsor the bill after a constituent reported losing $30,000 worth of lambs to coyotes after he moved to a new lambing range. "This program is really targeted more toward the livestock-men than the sportsmen," he said. Sterling Brown of the Utah Farm Bureau Federation said the group supports the bill because coyote populations have increased and are claiming up to 15 percent of newborn lambs. Some hunting-related businesses also offer commercial coyote hunting services. coyote hunting Last updated:  2 March 2012    Jones, Jeremy.  "Chippewa County Coyote Bounty Raises Concerns."   Montevideo American-News.  24 November 2011.
Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. Read contribute here In June 2020, several social media users copy-pasted a piece of text across social media that claimed the Rev. Al Sharpton was paid $24,000 to speak at the funeral of George Floyd, the Black man whose death while in police custody sparked nationwide protests against police brutality and racial injustice. social media     Verbatim or near-verbatim copies of this message  "Al Sharpton was paid $24,000 to speak at George Floyd's funeral"  have been shared by dozens of users on Facebook and Twitter. The earliest posting of this message that we could find was shared on June 13, a few days after Floyd's funeral service, by Brian Benedetto. That post had been shared more than 69,000 times:   However, none of the posts that we examined offered any evidence to support the claim. These posts weren't accompanied by links to news articles, quotes, TV interviews, financial records, or any other evidence to prove this accusation. It seems that this claim was simply conjured up out of thin air.  This type of post, a piece of text overlaid on a bright background, is frequently used to share unfounded claims, which are repeated over and over until some people become convinced that they are true.  Poynter wrote in 2019: Poynter When Facebook started letting users post text on top of colored backgrounds in 2016, it seemed like a fairly benign way to get people to share more personal thoughts on the platform. [...] But since then, like other formats on Facebook, the text post feature has been weaponized into an effective way to spread misinformation on the platform. Over the past few weeks, some of the most viral hoaxes on Facebook have spread in the form of text posts. They make salacious political claims without linking to any website or attaching a photo or video. They often come from regular Facebook users instead of Pages or Groups. There is no evidence to support the claim that Sharpton was paid $24,000 to speak at Floyd's funeral. This claim did not originate with a credible source and is not supported by any available evidence. However, we can't definitively say that Sharpton was not paid for this speaking engagement. We reached out to Sharpton and The Fountain of Praise Church in Houston for more information and will update this story if we hear back.  A video of Sharpton's eulogy can be viewed below: eulogy    Funke, Daniel.  "Forget Fake News Stories. False Text Posts Are Getting Massive Engagement on Facebook."
  Poynter.  6 March 2019. Emmrich, Stuart.  "The Most Moving Moment of Al Sharptons Eulogy for George Floyd."
  Vogue. 2 June 2020. CBS Minnesota.  "Al Sharpton To Deliver Eulogy At George Floyd Memorial Service."   2 June 2020. Claim:  Minutes of emergency response agencies' meeting reveal that on 26 November 2004 four Long Island shopping malls will be hit in a terrorist attack using chemical weapons.  Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Hello all, Some information has come to me.  It has not been released to the general public, but it's something we all need to be aware of. A couple of weeks ago someone was seen taking photos of my ambulance company in Bay Shore. This same person was seen outside Exchange Ambulance in Islip doing the same. The police were notified and the person was apprehended outside Southside hospital, again taking photos. He is a man of Middle Eastern descent and is being held for investigation. It seems that he was gathering information about our response capabilities in a mass casualty attack. The NY Field Office of the FBI held a meeting at Bay Shore Fire Department for officials from the local PD, EMS and FD's. They have information from this man and from their own intelligence that a mass attack is planned for Long Island. On Black Friday (November 26) 4 Long Island Malls are supposed to be hit simultaneously with chemical weapons. This would be the first time a chemical weapon is used in the United States. Forces from NYC and Washington DC would be diverted to aid here on Long Island leaving these areas vulnerable. A second attack would take place in these areas. Ever since 9/11 EMS has undergone extensive training on howto deal with a terrorist attack and to think it could really happen here is terrifying. There is also concern about car bombings as a large number of vehicles have gone missing in Nassau and Suffolk counties. Ambulances, taxi's, commercial vans and airport limos have been reported stolen.  These vehicles look perfectly innocent driving through our neighborhoods and no one would think twice about seeing them. This is not an internet scam. The officers at my department were at this meeting and I saw the minutes myself. I figure it's pretty serious if the FBI made an appearance to share what they know. I'm not sure why this isn't being released to the public. I can only assume that if this got out, no one would shop and it would be devastating to our economy. I do not want to spread panic, only information. Take from this what you will, but I needed to let you all know. I love you all and I felt I needed to share this with you. I know it's hard to believe. I can't believe that an Al Qaeda operative was only a few blocks from my home. Origins:  We first happened across this e-mail in mid-October 2004. At this time, the identity of its author is not known to us, nor is that of whomever penned the following preface that appears on a number of the forwards: The following email was sent to me last night by a personal friend.  She is the directly involved with the ambulance corp.  I am sending this email to the Red Cross to inquire.  Nonetheless, please read it and try and shop around Nov. 26, not THE 26th. Her email is not a "forward to 10 people" It is personally written and personally sent to her friends based on facts she is personally aware of. We searched for news articles that made reference to a man of Middle Eastern appearance being detained under the circumstances described, but to no avail. We also did not hear scuttlebutt about a potential terrorist assault on Long Island set for 26 November 2004 from sources other than just the one e-mail, which is noteworthy, given that supposedly at a meeting at the Bay Shore Fire Department on Long Island the FBI informed any number of police, fire, and emergency personnel of it. (It was not really plausible that everyone in the room, with the exception of one letter-writer, would have stayed entirely mute about an upcoming chemical attack on their neighborhoods, preferring to keep a secret over potentially safeguarding themselves and their loved ones by making the risk known.) Common knowledge has it that Black Friday (the term for the day after American Thanksgiving) is biggest shopping day of the year. (Which is somewhat true  though as far as actual sales go, it lags behind the four days that make up the two weekends just prior to Christmas, in terms of number of shoppers loosed on the stores it might well be.) It therefore follows that mall-targeting terrorists looking to cause the greatest harm to the greatest number would select that day over any number of  biggest shopping day others. Doug Einsfeld, chief of Exchange Ambulance of the Islips, said the e-mailed warning was a hoax. About two months prior to the rumor's emergence, the volunteer ambulance corps and local law enforcement had conducted a terror drill based on a scenario involving a chemical attack at Long Island malls taking place on the day after Thanksgiving. Einsfeld concludes that printed information about the drill, circulated internally and to police and fire officials, must have been used as a basis for the alert. He confirms that a man was seen taking pictures outside the volunteer ambulance corps' building.The FBI was notified and did investigate, but no evidence of the man intending any harm was uncovered. Regarding the e-mail's claim of the errant shutter bug's being taken into custody, Suffolk Police Third Squad Det. Sgt. Thomas Groneman said no such arrest was made. As for the claim of the man being of Middle Eastern appearance, Einsfeld said he saw the man only from behind and couldn't tell his ethnicity. This was not the first time it had been whispered that terrorists were plotting to kill shoppers. In October 2001, a fiction about the revelation of a planned strike in malls on Halloween by one of those involved in a letter to his girlfriend swept the nation. There was nothing to that story, but it nevertheless kept people away from the stores that day. letter to his girlfriend Adding to the plausibility of the Long Island tale were reports from the summer of unusual interest in that area's emergency vehicles. On 12 August 2004, the New York State Association of Fire Chiefs circulated this memo: THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FORWARDED BY THE NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS PUBLIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE FOR YOUR INFORMATION.August 12, 2004 The following alert was released by Westchester County Department of Emergency Services based on information fron New Jersey authorities and should be practiced by all agencies. Within the past week, the Office of Counter-Terrorism received three reports of suspicious activity concerning ambulances. The most recent incident involved an individual who attended an open-house at an ambulance squad in Middlesex County. The man, who claimed he was from Pakistan and a physician, asked a series of questions to the squad members that related exclusively to the operation of the emergency vehicles, including the speed at which the vehicles responded to calls and the use of the lights and sirens.  The individual appeared very nervous, did not ask about patient care, and left the premises when asked to complete a membership application. The second incident occurred at a hospital in Essex County and involved an inquiry made by a male of Middle-Eastern appearance who was first observed standing near an ambulance at the emergency room doors while writing notes in a small notepad.  When confronted by the vehicle's operator, a firefighter/EMT, the man asserted that he was employed as an ambulance mechanic. He then asked where a nearby fire department serviced its vehicles.  The man provided an illegible New York driver's license when asked to produce identification before leaving the premises. Lastly, OCT received information concerning an unusual attempt by three men of Middle-Eastern appearance to join a volunteer ambulance squad. The men expressed to squad members an "abnormal interest" in operating the emergency vehicles, and further insisted that the process by which they obtain the appropriate credentials and certifications to join the squad be expedited at their personal expense. Due to the recent threat elevation to ORANGE (HIGH) for the financial sector and intelligence relating to the threat of Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIEDs), any suspicious activity relating to emergency vehicles is of particular concern and should be reported to law enforcement immediately. As demonstrated by recent attacks in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and elsewhere, terrorist operatives worldwide continue to rely on VBIEDs as a method of attack.  This tactic has been used here in the past, notably in the 1993 World Trade Center and 1995 Oklahoma City bombings.  The World Trade Center and Oklahoma City attacks were carried out with rented vehicles, highlighting the need for awareness among the car, truck, and  limousine rental community of the potential for vehicle-borne attacks in the United States. As always, report all suspicious activities and individuals to the toll-free terrorism tip-lines.New York State: 1-866-SAFE-NYSNew York City: 1-888-NYC-SAFE It was feared in the summer of 2004 that those mysterious men might have been weighing up the possibilities of fashioning ambulances or firetrucks into rolling bombs by loading them with explosives or chemicals and using them to breach security barriers at hard-to-reach targets, the underlying assumption being emergency vehicles would be allowed near or into locations ordinary cars and trucks would be turned away from. Also considered was the possibility of such vehicles being used to launch a second wave of attack on the heels of an initial terror strike when all was confusion and no one would think to try to prevent an ambulance or fire truck from going to the aid of the injured. Long Island, which lies off New York City, is 118 miles long and 20 miles across at its widest point, and is connected to the Big Apple by three expressways.  It is home to a population of 2.65 million. Regarding the entities mentioned in the warning e-mail, the Exchange Ambulance of the Islip's is a volunteer non-profit service consisting of approximately 100 members. It is located on Long Island and serves the towns of East Islip, Islip, Islip Terrace. Southside Hospital  is Long Island's largest community hospital, having 377 beds. Exchange Ambulance Southside Hospital The region believes itself adequately prepared for a terrorist attack, including an event in Manhattan that could immobilize the area and cut off the Island from the mainland for days or perhaps weeks. Emergency workers on the island have engaged in a number of simulation drills for disaster events including train derailments with mass casualties, detonations of dirty bombs containing chemical, biological, or radioactive agents, hostage takings, and evacuations of specified areas. As Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy said in August 2004, "We are cognizant that we are in close proximity to the No. 1 target in America." Which could well be what triggered this rumor  that sense of proximity could have worked to cause someone to jump at shadows, misremembering an alert from the summer about suspicious characters as a current matter (especially in light of another man being seen taking photographs) and misunderstanding the paperwork generated around a summer 2004 disaster preparation drill as minutes of a meeting in which a specific warning was issued.  Barbara "minute- and second-guessing" Mikkelson Last updated:  7 November 2004    Sources:   Guart, Al.  "'Mideast' Snoops Spurring Ambulance-Bomb Alert."   The New York Post.  29 August 2004  (p. 12).     Kelleher, Jennifer Sinco.  "Terror E-mail a Hoax."   Newsday.  7 November 2004.     Rather, John.  "2 Counties Buff Disaster Plans."   The New York Times.  22 August 2004  (Long Island Weekly Desk, p. 5). When deciding which charities to donate to, many people consider an important factor to be the "efficiency" of these organizations  that is, what percentage of the monies taken in by a given charity goes to funding its mission rather than being eaten up by costs such as fundraising activities, salaries, and other administrative overhead. The e-mail reproduced above, which began circulating in 2005 and has been re-circulated every year since then around Christmastime, attempts to steer potential donors away from inefficient charities. Unfortunately, much of the information it presents was inaccurate back in 2005, and it has grown only more so in the years since then, resulting in a misleading and outdated view of various charities. We attempt to present accurate and up-to-date information about the named charities below. The following efficiency information is derived from the Charity Navigator web site, the GuideStar web site and Forbes magazine's November 2009 special report on the 200 Largest U.S. Charities. Salary information is taken from Schedule J (Compensation Information) of the various charities' IRS Form 990 filings, an annual reporting return that certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file with the IRS which provides information on the filing organization's mission, programs, and finances. (In the context of this article, the term "efficiency" refers to the percentage of total budget/expenses that each listed organization spends on providing charitable programs and services, while the term "compensation" or "pay" includes salary, one-time payments, and deferred compensation.) Charity Navigator GuideStar special report UNICEF United States Fund for UNICEF states 2010 2011 said United Way Worldwide reported World Vision World Vision Canada states: In our annual report to the Canada Revenue Agency, we publicly disclose information about executive compensation. In the interest of greater transparency to our donors, we have gone beyond our legal requirements by disclosing that our president, Michael Messenger, currently earns the top annual base salary of $215,000 plus a combination of taxable and non-taxable benefits. The presidents performance is subject to annual review by our Board of Directors, and his compensation is decided by them. World Vision Canada's (self-reported) efficiency is 81%, much higher than the 52% figure claimed above. BBB Goodwill Industries International Jim Gibbons compensation March of Dimes St. Jude parent Lions Clubs A 2011 addendum to the original message presented the following information: The American Legion National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Disabled American Veterans National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Military Order of Purple Hearts National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Vietnam Veterans Association National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Wounded Warriors National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. These organizations with no salaries have donations going to help Veterans and their families and youth. According to the most recent available Form 990 filings, all of these statements are false and/or misleading (in large part because the National Commanders are not necessarily the top business executives of these organizations): Unfortunately, the six veterans-related charitable organizations mentioned above don't receive very high marks for efficiency (as determined by Charity Navigator, the BBB, or Form 990 information): <!--Additional information:  America's Most Efficient Charities --> UNICEF USA. "CEO Salary Email." American Red Cross. "Red Cross Statement on Inaccurate Viral Email on Charity CEO Pay." 11 December 2012. United Way. "CEO Compensation FAQ." World Vision Canada. "Our Approach to Executive Compensation." Updated CEO names and salaries for several of the organizations listed. Claim:  The IRS is sending out unsolicited e-mail providing taxpayers with a web form to use to check on the status of their federal income tax returns and refunds. Status:  False. Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005]  You filed your tax return and you're expecting a refund. You have just one question and you want the answer now - Where's My Refund? Access this secure Web site to find out if the IRS received your return and whether your refund was processed and sent to you. New program enhancements allow you to begin a refund trace online if you have not received your check within 28 days from the original IRS mailing date. Some of you will also be able to correct or change your mailing address within this application if your check was returned to us as undelivered by the U.S. Postal Service. "Where's My Refund?" will prompt you when these features are available for your situation. To get to your refund status, you'll need to provide the following information as shown on your return:  Your first and last name Your Social Security Number (or IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number)   Your Credit Card Information  Okay now, Where's My Refund? Where's My Refund? Under the Privacy Act of 1974, we must tell you that our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code Sections 6001, 6011, 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must furnish us with records or statements for any tax for which you are liable, including the withholding of taxes by your employer.We ask for information to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States, and you are required to give us this information. We may give the information to the Department of Justice for civil and criminal litigation, other federal agencies, states, cities, and the District of Columbia for use in administering their tax laws.If you don't provide this information, or provide fraudulent information, the law provides that you may be charged penalties and, in certain cases, you may be subject to criminal prosecution. We may also have to disallow the exemptions, exclusions, credits, deductions, or adjustments shown on the tax return. This could make your tax higher or delay any refund. Interest may also be charged. Origins:   In  December 2005 we began seeing copies of the above-reproduced phishing scam, an e-mail purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (sent with a return address of <irs_notice@irs.gov>) and offering consumers a link to a handy web form they can use to check the status of their federal income tax returns and refunds.   Of course, the web form the recipient is directed to after clicking on the provided link is not from the real IRS web site,  but an imitation hosted on a server in a foreign country (Mexico in the example we received) that harvests information scammers can use for identity and financial theft by prompting the user to input all sorts of personal data (name, Social Security number, address) as well as other financial information (credit card number, ATM PIN). phishing The IRS does not ask for personal identifying or financial information via unsolicited e-mail, and in no case would the IRS need information such as credit card numbers or ATM PINs in order to respond to inquiries about the status of tax returns or refunds.  Taxpayers can contact the IRS via telephone at  1-800-829-1040 for questions regarding their taxes, or they can visit the genuine Where's My Refund? page on the IRS web site. Where's My Refund? Last updated:  20 December 2005    Sources:   Tri-Town News [Howell, NJ].  "IRS Warns of E-Mail Scam."   8 December 2005. A decades-old, remarkably persistent rumor periodically rears its head on social media:  The fact that McDonald's uses cow eyeballs and worm fillers does not stop them from legally using the claim that they served 100% beef. McDonald's has assured its consumers that its product contains 100% beef. They are allowed to do this because McDonalds buys their "beef" from a company called "100% Beef Company", making it possible for McDonald's to call beef byproducts and soy products "100% beef". McDonalds then ships the beef to their grinding facility in Oak Brook, Illinois where they then take the ground worm filler and add it to their 100% beef patties. McDonalds serves billions of people around the world every year. This allows them to produce a higher profit margin by increasing the amount of patties that can be made, by increasing their product load with the worm filler. The worm filler is ground and packaged in a facility next to McDonalds corporate headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois. The employees must sign a confidentiality waiver to never discuss the ingredients of the McDonalds food products or face termination and legal repercussions. However many employees have stepped up over the years with the truth and have created a huge controversy over the quality of food that the company produces. McDonalds has also been accused of using mutant laboratory meat, and pig fat their milkshakes and ice cream. Considering that one quarter of Americans eat McDonalds every single day, although nutritionists recommend you do so only once a month, they are doing so unaware of the products they are putting into their body. If everybody truly knew what they were consuming, they definitely would not be eating this. Rumors don't rely upon common sense. It's the "yuck!" factor that gets us, and so the earthworm additive rumor has long bedeviled McDonald's. As chronicled by Fredrick Koenig, the McDonald's "worm burger" rumor began in the American South in the late summer of 1978 as a tale primarily told about the Wendy's and driven by (false) reports that an investigative television news magazine program had broken the story; then, in typical urban legend fashion, the rumor quickly focused on the most prominent exemplar in that marketplace, the giant McDonald's fast food chain: Toward the end of the summer of 1978, my mother-in-law said she had heard a new rumor about a hamburger chain: A story going around Chattanooga, Tennesse, alleged that Wendy's put red worms in their hamburgers! Contamination rumors are fairly common occurrences in the food and beverage industries. They often sound silly and seem merely bothersome, but they can be devastating, as Wendy's well knew. The first inquiring phone call was made to Wendy's on August 15th. The caller said that the worm story had appeared on the television program 20/20. As the calls poured in, however, the name of the television program involved changed from week to week. Sometimes it was 20/20, sometimes 60 Minutes. Very early in this rumor series, a woman called Wendy's main office to say that her husband saw a program (20/20) on which appeared representatives from Wendy's and McDonald's hamburger chains. The Wendy's people, she said, admitted to putting worms in their hamburgers, but the McDonald's spokesmen were noncommittal. Wendy's was the main target of the worm rumor, with McDonald's, Burger Chef, and Burger King named from time to time. After Labor Day, the Wendy's worm rumors became even stronger in the Chattanooga area and included adjoining parts of Georgia. One whole section of Atlanta was affected. In desperation, Wendy's Chattanooga people demanded that the head office do something. Steve Samons of Wendy's decided to go public, while Doug Timberlake of McDonald's opted to "lie in the weeds" and see how Wendy's made out. A television newx conference was scheduled for September 15th. It was to feature a representative of the government meat inspection office in that region who would point out that nothing was added to the ground beef at Wendy's or at any other fast-food chain. For some reason, he did not show up, so the production became exclusively Wendy's, who denied all and made statements to exonerate themselves. After that effort, they were never again part of the rumor scene. From then on the rumor involved McDonald's. It spread out from Chattanooga and for a while seemed to follow Interstate 75, over to Atlanta, up to Ohio. Doug Timberlake said that when it reached Indiana and Ohio, it really flared up. McDonald's response was to deal with the rumor locally, denying it immediately, getting names and sending out letters, and passing out literature. It just so happened that McDonald's had an illustrated promotion press kit, featuring the high quality of ingredients that went into their burgers  "Nothing but 100% pure United States Government-inspected ground beef," and so forth. These materials were distributed to franchise owners in the affected areas and guidelines were laid down. If the literature did not seem to quell the rumors, it was recommended that they start a small, local advertising campaign stressing quality of products, with no specific mention of the rumor. If that failed to work, they were told to go to the local press as a last resort. In no case, however, were they to use the word worm. Managers who called to ask questions were told what to do "just in case." Then things turned scorching hot in Ohio, Tennessee, and Georgia. It wasn't even necessary for a person to find the rumor credible in order for it to affect his behavior. Just the thought in the back of one's mind of worms in hamburgers was enough to steer one to a pizza parlor. As Doug Timberlake said, "The rumor was hitting at the bottom line. It was seriously affecting sales in certain areas, and these kinds of losses could not be sustained for a very long period. The affected franchises were hurting; their operations were getting badly mauled." It was decided to hold a press conference in Atlanta. Timberlake was aware that "going public" would make many people aware of the rumor who had never heard it before. Public relations people often are leery of talking directly about a rumor problem or referring to rumors even indirectly, because they believe that such tactics spread rumor even more. On the other hand, an emphatic public statement possibly could immunize people from the effects of the rumor when they did hear it, as well as set the record straight for those who had already heard it. On November 23rd a national press conference was held in Atlanta in which the rumor about "protein additives" was denied. The "100% U.S. Government-inspected beef" position was re-asserted, and of course the word "worm" was never mentioned. A follow-up nationwide advertising campaign was launched in which color photographs of the product, with captions, celebrated its pure, uncontaminated ingredients. The "extinguishers" went into effect, and shortly thereafter the rumor was quenched. The experience of one owner of four McDonald's franchises in Atlanta, Georgia, was typical. Back in 1978, he saw his sales plunge by 30 percent and consequently had to lay off about a third of his employees. Corporate rumors aren't victimless. As McDonald's CEO Ray Kroc noted at the time, the rumor didn't even make sense from a financial standpoint: Rather than saving the company money, the idea of using of worm meat as a "cheap filler" was nonsensical because worms were much more expensive than beef: In April 2014 and again in November 2017, the "worm burger" rumors were revived when the faux news site Daily Buzz Live published an article (reproduced above) recycling that and several other old McDonald's-related urban legends, accompanied by an unrelated photograph of ground beef mixed with pats of frozen butter that coincidentally resemble worms. For the record, not only is the worm additive rumor untrue, but McDonald's also does not purchase and use cow eyeballs, skirt the law by buying adulterated meat from a company misleadingly named "100% Beef," or put yucky stuff like styrofoam balls and feathers in their milkshakes. article photograph cow eyeballs 100% Beef milkshakes Brown, Craig.  "... and Moreover."
 The [London] Times.  30 April 1992  (Features). Brunvand, Jan Harold.
 The Vanishing Hitchhiker.  New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.  ISBN 0-393-95169-3  (p. 90). De Vos, Gail.
 Tales, Rumors and Gossip.  Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996.  ISBN 1-56308-190-3  (p. 152). Koenig, Fredrick.
 Rumor in the Marketplace.  Dover, MA: Auburn House, 1985.  ISBN 0-86569-117-7  (pp. 14-17). Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker.
 Rumor!  New York: Penguin Books, 1984.  ISBN 0-14-007036-2  (pp. 70-71). Newsweek.
  "A Wormburger Scare."  27 November 1978  (p. 90).   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 174). In March 2021, new employment figures showed that the U.S. economy added 379,000 jobs in February, the first full month of Joe Biden's presidency. The news was greeted with cautious optimism, with the Wall Street Journal reporting that the gains had "set up a stronger recovery" for the spring of 2021, and The Washington Post reporting that the figures had "surpassed analysts' estimates." Politico wrote that: Wall Street Journal Washington Post Politico U.S. employers added a robust 379,000 jobs last month, the most since October and a sign that the economy is strengthening as confirmed viral cases drop, consumers spend more and states and cities ease business restrictions.The February gain marked a sharp pickup from the 166,000 jobs that were added in January and a loss of 306,000 in December. Yet it represents just a fraction of the roughly 10 million jobs that were lost to the pandemic. On social media, other observers  in particular those more broadly opposed to Biden  sought to undercut the significance of the jobs figures, claiming that a large majority of the increased employment came in one sector, namely food and beverage services. On Twitter, the libertarian economics blog Zerohedge wrote: wrote Of the 379K jobs added, 286K were waiters and bartenders.   The stockbroker and financial commentator Peter Schiff tweeted: tweeted 75% of the 379k jobs "created" in Feb. were waiters and bartenders returning to work. Since many restaurants and bars that closed will never reopen there's a limit to how long this can last... The right-wing British blog Guido Fawkes tweeted: tweeted "US economic recovery sees 379,000 jobs added this week, 286,000 were waiters and bartenders. God bless America and cheers!" Those figures were accurately stated, although "waiters and bartenders" was a reductive description of the occupations in question. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "true." The standard measure of job growth is "total nonfarm payroll employment, seasonally adjusted," a metric that is collated and published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), each month. On March 5, the BLS published figures for the preceding month, February 2021, writing that: "Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 379,000 in February..." In effect, this means that there were 379,000 more jobs in the United States in February than there were in January. published The BLS provides in-depth breakdowns of job gains or losses, and unemployment, including details on the demographic and sectoral contours of each month's data. According to the same set of figures, the "leisure and hospitality" sector gained 355,000 of the 379,000 total new jobs in February (Summary Table B).  Summary Table B Of those, 285,900 jobs were specifically in "food services and drinking places" (Table B-1). That's the source of the "286K" figure presented by Zerohedge. Those 285,900 jobs made up 75.4% of the total number of new jobs added in February, the percentage figure provided by Schiff in his tweet. Table B-1 However, the "food services and drinking places" subsector is made up of more than just "waiters and bartenders." The following is how that subsector is defined in the official North American Industry Classification System: defined Industries in the Food Services and Drinking Places subsector prepare meals, snacks, and beverages to customer order for immediate on-premises and off-premises consumption. There is a wide range of establishments in these industries. Some provide food and drink only; while others provide various combinations of seating space, waiter/waitress services and incidental amenities, such as limited entertainment. The industries in the subsector are grouped based on the type and level of services provided. The industry groups are full-service restaurants; limited-service eating places; special food services, such as food service contractors, caterers, and mobile food services; and drinking places. The BLS figures for February 2021 don't specify the proportion of those 285,900 jobs composed of specific occupations, but it's highly unlikely they were all "waiters and bartenders." In 2019, the most recent year for which figures are available, the following was the breakdown of occupations within the "food services and drinking places subsector": breakdown As can be seen from those figures, "waiters and waitresses" made up less than one-third of workers within that subsector. If the distribution of occupations was even broadly similar among the 285,900 new "food services and drinking places" jobs added in February, then it would appear highly unlikely that even a majority of those 285,900 new jobs were made up of "waiters and bartenders" alone. Claim:  A 2010 calendar distributed by Publix supermarkets identifies December 7 as "Islamic New Year."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2010] Dear Fellow Americans, Publix is giving away free calendars at their stores. This calendar is a disgrace and an insult to every American. This Publix calendar displays December 7th, ("A day that will live in infamy") with a notation "Islamic New Year" marked for that day. No mention of "Pearl Harbor Day," which commemorates the death of over 2500 American Service Men and an untold death toll of civilians on that fretful day. I have attached a copy of the December 2010 page for your review. Please go to https://publix.com. On top of the page is a link to "Contact us", click on this and on the next page under the Consumer Relations paragraph is the link for "e-mail. Write to them and inform them of your feelings about Publix recognizing the Muslim New Year over Pearl Harbor Day. Let Publix know that you will not tolerate this un-American attitude and boycott their stores. You can inform them that your shopping will be done at Walmart, Target and Winn Dixie, who recognize Americans and their fighting men and women. And, they are also cheaper than Publix.  Origins:  Muslims observe the Islamic New Year on the first day of Muharram, which is the first month in the Islamic calendar.  However, since the Islamic calendar is based on a lunar calendar of 354 days, its notable dates move around  relative to the Gregorian calendar from year to year: the Islamic New Year fell on December 29 in 2008, and on December 18 in 2009. In 2010, the Islamic New Year corresponds to December 7 on the Gregorian calendar, a coincidence which has caused something of a brouhaha  for Publix, a Florida-based supermarket chain.  Publix, like many businesses, offers calendars to its customers at the beginning of each year, and those calendars include legends identifying days of particular interest, such as federal holidays and religious holidays.  Publix's 2010 calendar bears a legend for December 7 marking that date as the "Islamic New Year," which it is  however, that day also has a special significance for Americans, as the passage of public law 103-308 in 1994 officially designated that date as National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, a day to remember and honor all those who died in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941.  (December 7 had also been observed as an annual day of remembrance for those killed at Pearl Harbor long before it was officially designated as such in 1994.) 103-308 That Publix's calendars included mention of the Islamic New Year but not Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day was a source of some controversy (although Publix pointed out that the Islamic New Year had been noted on their calendars since 2006, while Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day had never  been listed). The company responded by stating it would add a notation for the latter to the next year's calendars: For several years, Publix has given away calendars with valuable coupons inside. Traditionally, our calendars have solely noted holidays. Due to the number of holidays in a calendar year, days of remembrance have not been noted. This year, Islamic New Year happens to fall on Dec. 7. Like Chinese New Year, which is also a holiday, Islamic New Year rotates dates, is a holiday, and is noted on the calendar as such. We regret that the day of remembrance  Pearl Harbor  is not noted, and as a result of customer feedback, we will add Pearl Harbor to our next year's calendar. The calendars are no longer available at retail. Last updated:  9 January 2010    Ortega, Juan.  "Complaints Prompt Publix to Remove Calendar That Omitted Pearl Harbor."   [South Florida] Sun-Sentinel.  8 January 2010.    UPI.  "Pearl Harbor Omission Plagues Calendar."   9 January 2010. Marking what President Barack Obamaproclaimedas National Equal Pay Day, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke uttered a claim that many politicians have made in one form another at the state or national level. Women deserve equal pay for equal work. It's just that simple, Burke, a Madison School Board member, said in an April 8, 2014news release. In Wisconsin, a woman only earns 80 cents for every dollar a man earns -- and pay discrimination doesn't just hurt our families, it hurts our economies, too. Let's take a look. Similar claims In rating a number of pay-gap claims, we and our PolitiFact colleagues have found that wording is crucial. Two of those fact-checks help put Burke's claim into perspective. Former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk, while campaigning for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination to challenge Walker in the 2012 recall election, said Wisconsin women are paid 81 cents to the dollar of a man doing the same job. The key phrase was same job. We rated the statementFalse, finding that Falk misquoted the very report she relied on. The report said that -- among all men and women in Wisconsin working all sorts of jobs -- women earned 81 cents for every dollar earned by men. Burke's claim, in contrast, is more similar to one made by Obama. You know, today, women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, Obama said in his January 2014 State of the Union speech. That is wrong, and in 2014, it's an embarrassment. Women deserve equal pay for equal work. PolitiFact National rated Obama's statementMostly True. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, our colleagues found, women who worked full-time, year-round in 2012 made 77 cents for every $1 men earned across the country. The comparison includes all male and female workers regardless of occupation. Our colleagues noted, however, the existence of a pay gap doesnt necessarily mean the gap is caused by discrimination. Work by the Institute for Womens Policy Research, for example, found that one factor is that women more often choose lower-paying jobs such as receptionists, nurses and teachers, while men more often pursue paths as truck drivers, managers and computer software engineers. Wisconsin figures So what's the situation in Wisconsin? Three organizations -- the Institute for Women's Policy Research, the National Partnership for Women & Families and the American Association of University Women -- also cited 2012 census data as the latest available. Those figures show Wisconsin women earned 78 cents per $1 earned by men. The American Association of University Women said in a March 2014reportthat the median annualearningsfor Wisconsin women working full time year round was $36,535 -- 78 percent of the $46,898 earned by men. (The median is the middle number -- in other words, half of the workers earned more than that amount and half earned less.) Commenting on the pay gap at the national level, the association said career choices explain some of the pay gap. But even after accounting for college major, occupation, hours worked and other factors, the association said, 7 percent of the gap nationally between men and women college graduates remained unexplained one year after graduation. So, there is evidence that Wisconsin women earn 78 cents per $1 of what men earn, although the role discrimination might play is not clear. Our rating Burke said: In Wisconsin, a woman only earns 80 cents for every $1 a man earns. Her claim is slightly conservative, in that census data put the figure at 78 cents. It's worth noting that the gap is not necessarily due to discrimination -- a conclusion some might have drawn because Burke's statement made reference to pay discrimination. We rate the claim Mostly True. On 8 November 2016, a screenshot purportedly showing a deleted Tweet from Donald Trump's son, Eric, featuring an image of his marked ballot was widely circulated via social media: eric trump deleted his violation of new york state law, so here it is for posterity pic.twitter.com/Y0ss1Ew5Wc pic.twitter.com/Y0ss1Ew5Wc  noah kulwin (@nkulw) November 8, 2016 November 8, 2016  The above-displayed screenshot is real. The tweet was posted by Eric Trump on 8 November 2016 but was deleted shortly afterwards: Although the tweet's URL currently leads to Twitter's "Sorry, that page doesn't exist" page, we managed to archive a cached version of the tweet: page archive cached  Taking a "ballot selfie" or posting a photograph showing the inside of your voting booth may or may not be illegal, depending upon what state you're voting in. Unfortunately, Eric Trump posted his ballot picture from New York, a state where "ballot selfies" are still against the law  as a federal judge had affirmed just a few days earlier: illegal New York affirmed A federal judge says he is not overturning a New York state ban against ballot selfies or the showing of a marked election ballot to others. Manhattan Judge P. Kevin Castel said in a written ruling that people who want to publicize their ballot choices can do so through "other powerful means." The ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought on behalf of voters. The lawsuit contended that voters had a First Amendment right to share a photograph of their ballot with others, even through social media. Lawyers for the state and New York City argued against it. The state argued that a law more than a century old banned people from showing their marked ballot to others. U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan said it would "wreak havoc on election-day logistics" to issue a preliminary injunction against the law, which prohibits the display of "ballot selfies." Under the law, which dates from the 19th century, it is a misdemeanor for voters to share the contents of completed ballots. Violators could face up to one year in prison. Three voters sued on Oct. 26 to block enforcement of the law, saying that sharing ballot selfies was a form of speech protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. But the judge said that because of the imminence of the election, the voters needed to show a "clear or substantial likelihood" that their lawsuit would succeed before he could issue an injunction, and that they had not done so. "The public's interest in orderly elections outweighs the plaintiffs' interest in taking and posting ballot selfies," though they remained free to express their political message through "other powerful means," Castel wrote. It should be noted that Eric Trump's ballot photograph does not include his name or his picture. While it is assumed that the tweet pictured the real ballot Trump used to cast his vote, that element has not been verified. Ohlheiser, Abby.  "Yes, Your Ballot Selfie Still Might Be Illegal. Sorry."
  Washington Post.  8 November 2016. Stempel, Jonathan.  "Judge Refuses to Block New York 'Ballot Selfie' Law."
  Reuters.  3 November 2016. FACT CHECK:  Did President Obama order that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people?  Claim:   President Obama ordered "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people.   false WHAT'S   President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging federal agencies to more frequently use behavioral research insights in the creation and adoption of policy.     WHAT'S   President Obama ordered that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on American citizens; President Obama specifically directed agencies to implement any form of behavioral insight usage; the word "experiment" appeared anywhere in the Executive Order. Example:    [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] President Barry ORDERS BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ON AMERICAN PUBLIC!! https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3  TheFightingIrishDame (@TheIrishDame) September 16, 2015 September 16, 2015   Shock Executive Order: Obama Authorizes Behavioral Experiments On U.S. Citizens: To A ... - https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe  State of Globe (@StateofGlobe) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Obama Executive Order Instructs Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens: https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e  Bill Periman (@BillPeriman) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Origins:   On 15 September 2015 the web site Daily Caller published an article titled "President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments on American Public" which claimed that the chief executive had "authorized federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens": President Obama announced a new executive order which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives. The article was aggregated by other news outlets such as DC Clothesline, which similarly claimed the President's executive order had instructed "Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens": Does anyone actually believe "behavioral experiments" on the US citizenry are about "designing government policies to better serve the American people?" Think Pavlov's dog. And, can someone point to the Constitution and show where government has the authority to "experiment" on the citizenry in any shape, form or fashion? It's not there. Government possesses no authority whatsoever to conduct any type of experimentation, behavioral or otherwise, on the citizens of this nation. Both Daily Caller and DC Clothesline used the phrase "behavioral experiments" (conjuring up frightening scenarios of federal gaslighting), and the second article placed the phrase in quotes, suggesting specifically that the Obama administration had "ordered" sinister-sounding "behavioral experiments" be inflicted upon Americans. The 15 September 2015 Executive Order referenced by the articles is available on the White House's web site for open review. Tellingly, the word "experiments" does not appear anywhere within it; only words such as "encourage[d]," "identify," "review," and "improve." The executive order about "Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" actually decreed: web site decreed To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. Alongside the Executive Order, the White House issued a document titled "Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order; White House Announces New Steps to Improve Federal Programs by Leveraging Research Insights." Aiming to provide details not included on the Executive Order about how "behavioral insights" could apply to the creation and implementation of policy, that document explained: document Behavioral science insights  research insights about how people make decisions  not only identify aspects of programs that can act as barriers to engagement, but also provide policymakers with insight into how those barriers can be removed through commonsense steps, such as simplifying communications and making choices more clear. That same study on financial aid found that streamlining the process of applying  by providing families with assistance and enabling families to automatically fill parts of the application using information from their tax return  increased the rates of both aid applications and college enrollment. When these insights are used to improve government, the returns can be significant. For instance, the Federal Government applied behavioral science insights to simplify the process of applying for Federal student aid and has made college more accessible to millions of American families. Similarly, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which codified the practice of automatically enrolling workers into retirement savings plans, is based on behavioral economics research showing that switching from an opt-in to an opt-out enrollment system dramatically increases participation rates. Since the implementation of this policy, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation have led to billions of dollars in additional savings by Americans. Another germane fact sheet tidbit came in the form of detail pertaining to a new committee formed to facilitate the order's initiatives: The Executive Order also formally establishes the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), a group of experts in applied behavioral science that translates findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences into improvements in Federal policies and programs for the benefit of the American people. The passage excerpted above indicated that behavioral insights data targeted by the initiative stemmed not from government-led "behavioral experiments," but rather "findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences."  Another passage supported inferences that non-governmental research groups would be tasked with submitting the bulk of relevant findings to the SBST for consideration in the drafting of future policy: The Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA) is launching a Behavioral Science and Policy Series to identify promising avenues for applying behavioral science to public policy at the Federal level in order to improve Americans' lives. Through this series, by September 2016, working groups will deliver white papers that propose particular applications of behavioral science that can be applied, tested, and implemented at the Federal level in the near term. A less harrowing interpretation of the executive order than that fostered by conservative news sites was offered by the Houston Chronicle in a 17 September 2015 article: article Dr. Andrew Harper, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Texas Health Medical School, said behavioral science is an old discipline, used to maximize communication effectiveness, that is only now being applied to government-authored materials. "For example in healthcare there are simple things we want people to do  eat a balanced diet, sleep well," he said. "When just saying 'do it' doesn't work, we look to behavioral science to inform us on strategies that might work better." According to the executive order, research will be used to inform even the basic layout of federal agencies websites and other outreach information. The newly-founded team will consider "how the content, format, timing and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals." In other words, researchers will conduct clinical studies to determine how agencies could more effectively present information in a way that will move people to action. The Executive Order didn't come to pass without some objections, however. The University of Oxford's Practical Ethics in the News Blog featured an editorial that questioned how scientifically rigorous the selection and application of such data might be, implying the initiative's mission was too ambiguous. Author Joshua Shepherd conceded that the proposal was overall "a good thing," but said "the order raises a number of ethical and practical issues": editorial Given recent evidence that many results from experimental and social psychology fail to replicate, there might be reason to worry here. The executive order does not define what counts as an 'insight' from behavioral science. Is it the result of one study? A couple? Deployment of an insight that is nothing more than an experimental artifact could be damaging, or wasteful. Suppose a genuine insight exists. Even so, implementing it is not straightforward. Other experts didn't think that the potential flaws outweighed the benefits. University of Michigan professor Andrew Hoffman outlined the potential practical effects of such initiatives on policy in a Scientific American article, positing that their application to the drafting of policy was "long overdue": article [Hoffman] says that people might react rebelliously to a gas tax imposed by the government. A rise in its cost spurred by market forces, on the other hand, might prompt them to drive less. In that way, federal policies should consider the complicated ways that people filter, interpret and process messages. You can't expect to put a price on something  whether that's gas, plastic bags or emissions  and get an expected result, he said. These are things that sociology, psychology, political science have been focusing on for decades, Hoffman said. So to bring in the notion that humans are not perfectly rational, utility-maximizing beings in the formation of policy is long overdue. It is true that President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging and facilitating the application of behavioral research insights, with a stated goal of creating more efficient policy and stronger compliance. Moreover, some credible questions were raised about how rigorous standards for inclusion of such data might be. But the order neither referenced nor described "behavioral experimentation" upon the American people, nor did it in any way suggest that the order's details involved using anything other than existing, ongoing research carried out by social and behavioral science experts. Last updated:     17 September 2015 Originally published:   17 September 2015