Is it authentic?

Is the context accurate?

Is there evidence that proves the claim?

Is it based on solid reasoning?

Has it been posted or confirmed by a credible source?

The supposed report in this screenshot was never published by CNBC. 

No. Searching for this article’s headline on Google and CNBC yielded no results or news coverage. A fact check from Reuters included a statement from CNBC explaining that “the article in question was never published on CNBC.com.”

“Fact Check-CNBC did not publish article linking U.S. movie theatre group AMC to Silicon Valley Bank collapse” 

Impostor content: Fake headline links bank’s collapse to AMC movie theaters

 that fact-checkers at Reuters determined was a 

There is no evidence that the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is connected with financial volatility at AMC, which retail investors targeted as a 

 — one that goes viral online — during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Screenshots are not always sufficient evidence that something was published online. 

An image that appears to be a screenshot of a CNBC news article linking the March 10 collapse of Silicon Valley Bank to AMC Theatres went viral, but it’s not authentic. CNBC never published such a piece. Let’s look at the facts. 

No. This screenshot was spread online by a social media account that regularly promotes AMC as a meme stock, which is a stock that goes viral. 

Social media users should be skeptical of the authenticity of alleged news reports that are only presented as a supposed screenshot without links to the original source. Bad actors commonly use this strategy to pass fabricated or manipulated screenshots off as genuine news stories.

This sort of impostor content can be quite convincing when mindlessly scrolling through social media because visual evidence typically seems credible and because these screenshots are often designed to look authentic. Users can protect themselves by recognizing this common tactic and doing a search of a screenshot of a news article to see if it’s genuine.

There is no evidence to support this claim. Jordan did not make any such announcement on his website, social media accounts or during TV appearances.  

Check out the seven primary standards of quality journalism.

The standards of quality journalism

This tutorial video teaches you the basics of “lateral reading” (doing effective internet searches to evaluate a source or piece of information).

Lateral Reading

Tutorial: Lateral reading

“Fact Check-No evidence Jim Jordan announced Ray Epps will testify against FBI” 

Baseless claim that Jan. 6 rioter ‘flipped’ against the FBI circulates on Twitter 

As of March 15, Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, 

 that whistleblowers contacted him about politicization within the Department of Justice, has 

 that Epps is “flipping” and will testify against the FBI.

Epps, a Trump supporter, has been the subject of a wide range of 

 based on his role in the violence, including that he was a federal informant who helped start the riot.

Conspiratorial claims that attempt to shift blame for the Jan. 6 attack have become a common partisan tactic. There is no evidence that anyone associated with the government helped instigate the attack. 

Learn to recognize conspiracy theories and explain what makes people vulnerable to conspiratorial thinking.

Conspiratorial Thinking

The News Literacy Project identified seven simple steps that help you know what to trust. These steps can apply to information you encounter in the moment and over time. As these behaviors become ingrained in your information consumption habits, you will deepen your expertise.

How to know what to trust

A misspelled name, a purchased Twitter check mark, and a lack of supporting evidence are just a few of the red flags indicating that this claim about Ray Epps, an Arizona man who took part in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol and who has been the target of conspiracy theories, is false. Let’s look at the facts. 

This tweet is not breaking news and did not originate from an official source or from a standards-based news organization. 

We can all make better choices about the information we consume, share and act on. But can you tell the difference between social media posts that are false or misleading and those that are credible?

Test your news literacy skills with this quiz and help stop the flood of misinformation.

News Lit Quiz: Should you share it?

This quiz tests your ability to differentiate between sources of credible news and those that are merely posing as legitimate sources.


News Lit Quiz: Is it legit? Vetting news sources for credibility

A social media post that strongly aligns with one’s political beliefs or desires — in this case, a message perpetuating the conspiratorial and untrue claim that the attack on the Capitol was organized by the government — can easily gain traction online as confirmation bias leads people to like and share the post. But a quick evaluation of these tweets often reveals red flags indicating these messages may not be worth engaging with.

”: This term is often abused by purveyors of misinformation to give their claims an unearned air of importance.

”: While typos happen, poor grammar and misspelled names may indicate a source is unreliable.

: This tweet does not contain any links or evidence to support its claim, an example of a sheer assertion.

: Clicking on this person’s profile revealed that their check mark was purchased through Twitter Blue, the platform’s subscription service. While this blue check mark once verified that a news organization or poster was credible, it’s now possible for bad actors to misuse it to make content feel verified. Approach accounts displaying the symbol with caution.

Also, even a brief search for “Ray Epps” and “Jim Jordan” would 

This is not a genuine news report and the claim about an arrest warrant being issued for Gates is fabricated.

No. The evidence shows that no such warrant has been issued for Gates and that the court supposedly issuing it doesn’t exist. 

“Bill Gates not arrested in Philippines over COVID-19 shots” 

“Posts Fabricate Charge Against Bill Gates in Philippines” 

“Fact check: Report of murder warrant for Bill Gates in Philippines is fabricated” 

“Fact Check-Bill Gates was not issued an arrest warrant in the Philippines” 

False reports claim Bill Gates faces ‘premeditated murder’ charges over vaccines

 in the Philippines for “premeditated murder” in relation to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

rumor stems from a conspiratorial website

 with a penchant for pushing false claims.

The Heinous Crimes Court that allegedly issued this warrant 

Baseless conspiratorial fantasies about public figures being arrested for serious crimes are common on conspiracy theory websites.

Gates and his foundation are high-profile supporters and funders of vaccines, and controversies and baseless claims about COVID-19 vaccinations continue to capture attention online. If an arrest warrant had actually been issued for Gates over crimes related to vaccines, it would have generated headlines and been a breaking news story covered by every major news outlet. 

A false claim that an arrest warrant was issued for Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates for crimes related to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout originated with a conspiratorial website known for spreading false rumors. Let’s look at the facts.   

The conspiratorial website that published this claim and other fictitious stories states in a disclaimer that it makes “no representations about the suitability, reliability, availability, timeliness, and accuracy of the information, software, products, services and related graphics contained on the site for any purpose.”

Sensational and false claims often gain traction on social media because they appeal to what their audience wants or feels to be true. Social media users can protect themselves from these kinds of conspiratorial fantasy claims by seeking out more information about their source and checking to see if any reliable, standards-based sources are reporting the same thing. A search for NewsPunch, the conspiratorial website where this claim originated, finds several fact-check articles debunking this particular claim, along with dozens of additional articles addressing other false claims it has published.