Former President Barack Obama signed a law in 2012 allowing government propaganda in the U.S., and making it “perfectly legal for the media to purposely lie to the American people.”
Claimed by social media users · 2019-08-27
What fact-checkers found (1)
- AP NewsFalseRead the full review →
FAXTR aggregates verdicts from independent fact-checking organizations so you can compare the evidence and judge for yourself. We are an evidence collector, not a verdict authority.
Related fact checks
- A bill signed by former President Barack Obama allows "the media" to get "away with lying."False
- During former U.S. President Barack Obama's eight years in office, 67 people in the custody of U.S. …True
- You have to be a member of the House of Lords or an elected member in a general election to become U…Incorrect. By modern convention the Prime Minister is an MP, but there is no law that requires them to have been elected in a general election.
- In 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump promoted a proposal called "The TRUMP Rules" that would restric…False
- “American oil production is up by more than 600,000 barrels a day."Exaggerated
- In early April, Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs unveiled the Global Fact-Checking Network (GFCN…The GFCN was co-founded by TASS, Russia's state-run news agency, and the Autonomous Non-Profit Organization ANO Dialog — both known for their close ties to the Kremlin. TASS was suspended in 2022 by the European Alliance of News Agencies (EANA) over concerns about its editorial independence. In 2023, the European Union sanctioned ANO Dialog for its role in spreading disinformation and for operating the pro-Kremlin website War on Fakes. Ahead of Russia's 2024 presidential election, the US Treasury also sanctioned the group under Executive Order 14024, targeting individuals and entities linked to the Russian government. Does the GFCN meet global fact-checking standards? Independent fact-checking relies on transparency, verifiable sourcing, and open methodologies. Leading organizations such as the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) require fact-checks to cite public data and provide transparent methods that others can replicate. DW reviewed several GFCN articles and found consistent problems with sourcing and methodology. In one article titled "The Romanian Elections: How Did the West Win Only on the Second Try?", the author cites the 2024 Eurobarometer, claiming only 22% of Romanians support aid to refugees, only 14% back the EU's actions on Ukraine, and only 13% favor Ukraine's EU candidate status. But these figures are false. DW cross-checked the data and found significantly higher levels of Romanian support for EU policies on Ukraine in the 2024 Eurobarometer,contradicting the article's core claim. Another piece alleges that the Soros family was the "shadow organizer" behind the "HANDS OFF!" protests against US President Donald Trump's second administration, which took place across the United States on April 5, 2025. The article argues that, since some organizers had previously received grants from the Open Society Foundations, the Soros family must have orchestrated the protest. That's misleading. The piece focuses narrowly on two groups — MoveOn and Indivisible — and ignores the broader coalition behind the rallies. While both organizations have indeed received funding from Open Society Foundations, the grants supported general programming, not the April 5 protests specifically. Moreover, these groups list dozens of funders, not just the Soros-backed foundation. Receiving support from Open Society Foundations doesn't prove direct involvement on the part of the Soros family, whose philanthropic work has long been targeted by conspiracy theorists. These narratives often paint Soros as a puppet master behind protests, migration, or global unrest — claims that have been widely discredited. Another GFCN article titled "Is ChatGPT Prone to Russian Propaganda?"fails to seriously engage with the question it raises. Instead, it spends most of its word count defending TASS and attacking a Norwegian media outlet that questioned the Russian agency's credibility. The article barely mentions recent investigations — such a report by NewsGuard, which DW covered — which document Russian attempts to manipulate generative AI platforms. The piece's only conclusion appears in the final paragraph, which vaguely states: "It is incorrect to give a chatbot human qualities and accuse it of 'preferring' one of the sources to the others."