On the screen in the Treasury Hall of Mexico’s National Palace, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador looks at the names of the media outlets that his government has accused of misleading the public.

“It is important to know how our adversaries lie and slander”, says the President to the reporters at the presidential headquarters, but also to thousands of people watching live through social networks and state media.

In one of the deadliest countries for journalists -156 murdered reporters in the last 22 years, according to data from the organization Article 19-, the head of state began in 2021 to dedicate a full section of the Conferencia mañanera (morning conference), his main communication platform, to pointing out alleged falsehoods of the press and accusing it of not supporting his national project. The section is called Quién es quién en las mentiras (Who’s Who in Lies).

According to data provided by the government itself in response to requests for information, the President’s famous Conferencia had 11 million reproductions on social networks in July 2022 alone: a daily average of 73 thousand reproductions on Facebook, 5,700 on Twitter, and 52 thousand on YouTube, giving a measure of its reach and impact on public opinion.

Who’s Who originally aired every Wednesday, but on November 9th the President announced it would become daily, arguing that the lies and “desperation” of his adversaries had increased. This program had been preceded from July 2020 by the InfodemiaMX project, of the Mexican State Broadcasting System (SPR), present through social networks, radio, and television transmissions.

Both platforms claim to combat false publications, with Infodemia focusing on fact-checking current affairs such as the invasion of Ukraine or Covid, as well as national politics.

However, this cross-border journalistic alliance of seven media from different countries, including Animal Político and coordinated by the Latin American Center for Investigative Journalism, CLIP, reviewed the fact-checking content of these official verifiers and confirmed that they often misinform or manipulate facts in favor of the government and the ruling party, Morena.

In addition, we have documented the use of public funds or taxpayers’ money to finance this sophisticated apparatus of official propaganda.

When questioned by Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the IACHR, Pedro Vaca, government spokespersons said that these “media outlets” don’t comply with international verification standards. However, they did not clearly explain their methodology, and in several cases, they do not comply with the standards of impartiality and transparency that characterize independent fact-checking projects.

This alliance’s systematic analysis of the activity of Infodemia and Who’s Who in Lies also revealed that official fact-checking tends to target critical journalists, outlets, and opponents more frequently than those favorable to the government. Some of these checks are actual falsehoods that detonate intense digital harassment against the journalists mentioned.

The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the IACHR, Pedro Vaca, considers such behaviour a strange entity or an “antibody” within the standards of freedom of expression, with the State assuming a role of “scrutinizer” or media auditor, and often subjecting journalists to “scorn” in social networks, thus inhibiting their participation in the public debate.

Mentions of columnist and academic Denise Dresser are a strong example of this official practice. In at least 7 broadcasts of Who’s Who, from January to August of this year, she has been accused of misinforming. Dresser has denounced that she has been assaulted in the streets by supporters of the ruling party, something she attributes to being a frequent target of these programs. The attacks came after she critizised government policies such as the move for the militarization of public security -a position which López Obrador himself had opposed as a candidate, rejecting the militarist path.

One such event took place on October 2nd, where videos showed the academic receiving verbal aggressions as she went to demonstrate in the Zócalo of the country’s capital.

“They unleash constant harassment, digital harassment of all kinds, insults, threats, very degrading memes, and they often use the same adjectives that the President foists on me, chayotera, conservative press, sold-out press”, said Dresser in an interview with Animal Político about the discourse used in government platforms.

“The violence goes from the ‘mañanera’ straight to social networks, and I have already received death threats, they send me pictures of my children telling me my son will not come home that night, that I will only get his fingers that night, and there is also physical harassment. Once, in the supermarket, a man came up to me and shouted ‘die you chayotera’, and two weeks ago I was standing in Reforma, a car was passing by, he stopped and shouted ‘death to conservatives’”.

For this report, Animal Político asked the federal government spokesperson in charge of Who’s Who, and those responsible for the InfodemiaMX project for a statement, but at the time of publication they had not responded.

InfodemiaMX, officialist ‘verification’

InfodemiaMX platform is directed by journalist Jenaro Villamil (618 thousand followers on Twitter). Between 2021 and 2022 it reported a public expenditure of at least 2,800,000 pesos (about 142 thousand dollars), according to information provided by the Public Broadcasting System (SPR) via the National Transparency Platform.

In addition to having a website (which during the period from July 3rd, 2020 to April 10th, 2022 accumulated 89,453 views), it shares its content on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and public television stations Canal Catorce and Canal Once.

Animal Político followed up on their publications, often finding biased information and even disinformation when defending the government and the Morena party. Meanwhile, Villamil assures on his website that they have a commitment to truthful and plural information.

In one of his verifications, for example, the outlet assured that it is false that Morena candidate for the State of Mexico, Delfina Gómez, has been accused of electoral crimes for withholding 10% of the salary of municipal workers when she governed Texcoco.

She has not been sanctioned, this is true. However, upon verifying the sentence of the Electoral Tribunal of the Judiciary of the Federation -and not only the communiqué to which Infodemia referred-, it was found that although the Electoral Tribunal had not sanction Gómez, it did not exempt her from being investigated by authorities in other areas, and in fact corroborated the investigation of the National Electoral Institute (INE), which confirmed along with documents and statements of the Mexican State politician herself that she had participated in the illegal withholding and diversion of resources to Morena.

For its ruling, the Electoral Tribunal consulted the Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Mexico, and the latter confirmed the existence of 5 written complaints regarding the case of Gómez and the withholding of 10% of the salaries of workers of Texcoco City Hall, “for which the corresponding investigation files were integrated”. The prosecutor’s Office of the State of Mexico has provided no information on these investigations.

InfodemiaMX also published a misleading comparison in which it highlighted that fewer journalists had been murdered in the present six-year term, but using data of only 3 years and comparing it to that of full six-year terms of previous governments. In fact, at that time, the Lopez administration had the highest yearly average of murdered journalists, with 18.3, surpassing the average of 16 under Peña Nieto, and 16.8 under Felipe Calderón, according to figures provided by the Ministry of the Interior.

In February 2022, Infodemia disinformed by denying that in Mexico City, governed by Morena, patients had been treated with ivermectin. A lie, as indicated in this verification.

A look at InfodemiaMX’s Twitter account shows that it often takes the President’s word, or that of other members of his cabinet, as the sole support for its ‘verifications’, without resorting to other figures or reports to corroborate or contrast.
This is how it stated that it was false that López Obrador’s government spied on journalists and activists, even though an investigation supported by documentary evidence found that the Army had indeed used the spy software Pegasus during this six-year term.

One more example of ‘verification’ based solely on the President’s word:

Programs such as #DebatesVsInfodemia, also by InfodemiaMX, replicate the President’s discourse on projects such as Dos Bocas refinery or the Mayan Train, accusing those who oppose or question the works of lying.

Likewise, when the press reported serious incidents in Morena’s internal elections, the outlet claimed there was a campaign of “hate speech and disinformation”, even though there had been in fact acts of violence and complaints of irregularities supported by photos and videos.

InfodemiaMX was asked via Transparency if it had any contract with consulting or digital communication firms to design its contents or promote them, but they denied having any.

Also in response to requests for information, the Mexican State Broadcasting System said that its Office of System Digital Networks is in charge of tracking, monitoring, verifying and exposing fake news.

And provided details of the salaries of those who operate InfodemiaMX

Treasury documents on public budget show no specific item for InfodemiaMX project. However, in a review of the budget for SPR as a whole, we found a significant increase in the resources allocated to this project in 2021, for a total of 1,014 million pesos (more than $51 million dollars), after receiving only 214 million ($10.8 million dollars) in 2020, and 205 million in 2019 ($10.4 million dollars).

998 million pesos ($50.6 million dollars) were allocated to it for 2022, and for 2023 the project is expected to receive 625 million pesos ($31.7 million dollars).

Who’s Who against critical media

Who’s Who in Lies comes on every Wednesday since June 2021, as part of President López Obrador’s Morning Conferences, which are broadcast live on different platforms, including YouTube, public television channel 21, and the radio station of the National Polytechnic Institute (IPN); in addition, an audio version can be accessed on Spotify since 2019.

A review of 34 shows which included the section Who’s Who between January and August 2022, showed that an average of 148 thousand people watched each broadcast on the government’s YouTube channel.

On Twitter, @QEQMentiras has more than 17,000 followers, while its host, Elizabeth García Vilchis, has 40,000.

Using the tools TrendsMap and Twitonomy, and analyzing the period from August 2021 to August 2022, we found that nine of the ten accounts that interact the most with @QEQMentiras are users who on their profile identify themselves as employees of the public agency Notimex, which has been on strike for two years.

The three accounts most retweeted by @QEQMentiras are those of López Obrador, InfodemiaMX, and Jesús Ramírez, government spokesperson; and the word used most often in that same period was ‘President’.

El Sabueso, of Animal Político, found at least nine cases in which this section of the morning conference included false or misleading statements.

For example, in March it claimed that the benefits of the Full-Time Schools program, such as food and extended hours for basic education schools, would be preserved when replaced by another program, called La Escuela es Nuestra (The School is Ours). However, the latter’s operating rules and budget did not include elements such as food and extended hours.

Earlier, in August 2021, the section highlighted as a government achievement the fact that 99.5% of people in the country who sought medical attention in fact got it, when at least 64% of people in 2020 went to private services.

In the August 10th program, Who’s Who host, Vilchis, said it was false that the President kept a list of opponents which he consulted on social networks every time he wanted to know their opinion.

Yet on August 1st, 2022, the President said: “It turns out that when I want to know something, I have a list of those who express themselves through social media, so I see Claudio -a businessman who constantly criticizes López Obrador’s policies-, what he says, and then I see Sarmiento -a columnist for Reforma newspaper-, another gentleman… I have about 10”.

The most recent case occurred in August 2022, when in order to refute a tweet by former President Felipe Calderón, Who’s Who falsely claimed that a video of a water spill had been recorded in Spain, when in fact it had been recorded in Acapulco.

The government’s own platform accepted its mistake and apologized on Twitter.

A review of 34 Who’s Who broadcasts during 2022 found that criticism focused on digital or print media, with only one accusation against Televisa for alleged misinformation. Only one mention of TV Azteca was recorded, albeit focused on reporter Irving Pineda. Pro-government Internet users have attacked this journalist using the hashtag #IrvingChillón (IrvingCryBaby).

This is the title they gave to a YouTube video of Pineda asking the President if he would finally make a direct call to use masks during the pandemic: “Gatell swept and mopped the floor with Lord Cry Baby when he asked this STUPID question and RIDICULED him!”

In that same period, only one mention was made of newspaper La Jornada, for reporting damages in the vinyl paint coat of the Postal Palace.

In contrast, 18 mentions were made of newspaper Reforma in different broadcasts, 15 of El Financiero, 15 of El Universal, and 14 of journalist Carlos Loret, whose tax and property data were made public by the President despite the fact he is not a public servant and therefore his information should be confidential.

Loret’s personal finances came out after the portal he works for, Latinus, published a report of an alleged conflict of interest involving the President’s son, even though the government had denied the accusations.

López Obrador significantly reduced spending on official advertising, compared to the administration of Enrique Peña Nieto. However, in addition to the use of public media such as InfodemiaMX, Canal 21, and Canal Catorce to disseminate propaganda, the concentration of spending in a few media outlets persists, and there is a lack of clarity regarding the allocation of these resources. For example, La Jornada, Televisa, and TV Azteca received more official advertising funds than any other outlet in the first half of López Obrador’s six-year term, between 2019 and 2021.

“Between the three of them, it adds up to 2 billion 552 million pesos, that is, 29.52% of the total. Televisa has received 933 million; TV Azteca 848 million; and La Jornada 771 million,” said Artículo 19 in its most recent analysis of budget data.

As to mentions of politicians, analysis of Who’s Who in the referred period, shows that members or former members of Partido Acción Nacional were mentioned, among which Kenia López, Gabriel Quadri, Jorge Triana, Javier Lozano, Vicente Fox, Ricardo Anaya, Xóchitl Gálvez, Julián Rementería, Mariana Gómez, Marko Cortés, Lilly Téllez and Juan Carlos Romero Hicks.

Six mentions were made of politicians from the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI): Congresswoman Paloma Sánchez, Senator Ramírez Marín, former presidential candidate Francisco Labastida, Alito Moreno, Osorio Chong, and Ruiz Massieu.

From Morena, only Porfirio Muñoz Ledo was mentioned, although the latter recently adopted a critical position regarding the party and President López Obrador.

In addition to media outlets, the section has also accused civil society organizations -such as Causa en Común, México Evalúa, Mexicanos Contra la Corrupción y la Impunidad, which has published reports on alleged corruption in López Obrador’s government, and the Mexican Institute for Competitiveness (IMCO), which publishes analyses pointing out deficiencies in government reforms, such as the energy sector’s- of attacking the government and spreading alleged disinformation.

In the same way, they have criticized columnists, influencers and environmental organizations that have protested the construction of the Mayan Train in the south of the country, using the hashtag “Save me from the fake”.

They have also accused international media, such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, El País, and Bloomberg, of lying when they criticize their policies.

Regarding financial media, host Vilchis said on June 1st: “Bloomberg deceives about gas costs and subsidies… Bloomberg does not tell the truth, since its objective is to question federal energy policy and defend business interests”.

Days later, on July 27th, it celebrated the outlet for publishing a piece titled ‘Mexico’s super-weight surprises’.

In Who’s Who in Lies there are also moments in which no ‘verifications’ are presented, but they simply highlight government achievements, arguing “they are hardly talked about”. They present polls on the President’s high approval rates, or post videos of roadworks in progress.

Analysis with TrendsMap and Twitonomy found that the @QEQMentiras account had among its most used hashtags #AIFAOrgulloMexicano (the AIFA is the Felipe Ángeles International Airport, built during López Obrador’s administration) and #AMLO, and its most used word was ‘President’.

In addition to qualifying statements as false, the section uses sarcastic phrases and adjectives. The media is accused of saying “nonsense”, of quoting “pseudo-specialists”, of being “conservative” and defending a pessimistic vision, or of aiming to generate “animosity” against the government.

“For El Universal and the adversaries, everything is AMLO’s fault, how barbaric!”, said the host on one occasion.
On his show, the President has said that in his opinion the press should not be neutral, but take sides, be a militant press and support his process of “transformation”.

No compliance with international verification standards

On July 1st, 2021, a hearing of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) was held, in which the Special Rapporteur of the IACHR for Freedom of Expression, Pedro Vaca, asked the spokesperson of the federal government, Jesús Ramírez -as representative of the State-, if he knew the international standards of fact-checkers compiled by the Poynter Institute, and which ones did he considered were met by Who’s Who.

Vaca said that, in his opinion, the government should “reconsider” that section, because “it may be affecting the guarantees for a free, informed debate” by incurring in stigmatization.

In his next intervention, Cuevas denied that it was state policy to harass, persecute or repress journalists.
“We take into account what has been said about this section, about Who’s Who, about the issue of lies or fake news… which has no other purpose than to highlight the damage that fake news can do, but it is not a stigmatization of journalists, nor of the media… international standards are followed to enrich the public debate,” he added.

A year later, in an interview with Animal Politico, Rapporteur Vaca again pointed out that the Mexican State is playing a role that is at least “atypical” in assuming itself as a media auditor, and it was not being clear about its methodology for selecting verifications.

“Exposing people the way they do can inhibit people’s participation, and that is not a democratically plausible result,” he said.

The media, he insisted, can be scrutinized, but “the point is whether the State should have the role of carrying out scrutiny and exposure,” considering its responsibility in public debate and in guaranteeing freedom of opinions, even divergent ones.

“In a democracy, all actors have the right to freedom of expression, but not all actors have the same responsibilities in the public debate,” he said.

“There are rulings of the Inter-American Court that state that people who hold public positions, positions of power, who develop activities in public institutions, must show greater diligence in the reasonable verification of the facts on which they base their opinions. Why? Because they speak from pulpits that get a lot of attention from society, and what they say, how they say it, even what they fail to say, has an enormous potential to alter public perception”.

The fight against disinformation, Vaca pointed out, is important and the State can support society’s efforts in favor of media literacy.

If a country’s government is determined to do fact-checking on its own, he points out, it should at least follow a rigorous methodology, such as the ones different verification outlets have designed. “Why not demand that the State comply with the same standards?”, he added.

Through information request 331000121000322, the office of the Presidency assured that the methodology used in Who’s Who is from the Poynter Institute, and shared a link that now says “page not found”.

Poynter identifies itself as “the fact-checking capital of the world”, and home of Politifact and the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN).

Media seeking the IFCN badge must comply with the principles of impartiality, fairness and transparency of sources and methodology, traits that, as we have reported, do not characterize the verification platforms run by the government.