A Facebook post, which uses the term “bandit” to refer to Lula da Silva, uses what appears to be a Forbes magazine cover story on the former Brazilian president, allegedly presenting him as “one of the richest “. in the world.” But neither the image corresponds to a news nor did Forbes make such a cover with Lula da Silva.
fake post on facebook
First, it is necessary to understand the source of the “news” used in the publication. This is a text published on May 16 on the website “a trumpet news”, still available at this link.
The online page has been the source of several fake news and dissemination of inaccurate information. At the end of the articles, the authors include references to supposed “sources”, in an attempt to give credibility to the texts. In this specific case, it refers to a “source” on a website with the domain “odetective.com”, which does not return any results when trying to access it.
In addition to the text, the “atrombetanews” page uses a completely doctored Forbes magazine cover: this is, in version, a digital edition of the cover of the 2013 issue with Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov, which can be found at this Forbes photo. Gallery. .
Forbes 2013 cover doctored to create fake content
It is easy to find the similarities between the original cover and the manipulated cover, with Lula da Silva: the colors, the magazine logo cut through the men’s heads, the placement of the text boxes and the sloppy editing of the image in the main text below, with different colors and fonts from all other content.
The photograph of Lula da Silva used to replace that of the Russian millionaire is by José Cruz, from Agência Brasil, and is available here. The fact that she was in a similar position to Mikhail Prokhorov, who appears on the actual cover of Forbes, made it easy to manipulate the magazine’s cover.
conclusion
It is not true that Forbes magazine covered Lula da Silva as one of the richest men in the world. Fake content originates from a website spreading fake news and inaccurate content that is hidden in so-called “sources” without any credibility.
Thus, according to the Observer classification system, this content is:
WRONG
In the Facebook classification system this content is:
FAKE: The main content claims are factually inaccurate. This option typically matches “false” or “mostly false” ratings on fact-checking websites.
NOTE: This content was curated by The Observer as part of a fact-checking partnership with Facebook.
Source: Observadora
