CheckMate is a weekly newsletter from RMIT FactLab recapping the latest in the world of fact checking and misinformation. It draws on the work of FactLab's researchers and journalists, including its CrossCheck unit, and of its sister organisation, RMIT ABC Fact Check.
You can subscribe to have the next edition delivered straight to your inbox.
CheckMate May 19, 2023
This week, we wrap up the fracas over whether Vincent Lingiari's grandson is supporting the "No" campaign for the Voice to Parliament, as suggested by campaign leaders Warren Mundine and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price.
We also debunk claims that a viral video of a woman ... er ... eating a worm shows an adviser to the World Economic Forum, and shoot down a chart boosted by Twitter CEO Elon Musk that paints a misleading picture of race and violent crime in the US.
'No' campaign misleads with claim that Vincent Lingiari's grandson opposes the Voice
A man described by the "No" campaign for the Voice to Parliament referendum as Vincent Lingiari's grandson has denied that he is related to the famed Indigenous land rights activist, RMIT FactLab reported this week.
A photo of Stewart Lingiari, a Millwarparra man from Ngukurr in the Northern Territory, was shared by "No" campaign leaders Warren Mundine and Shadow Indigenous Australians Minister Jacinta Nampijinpa Price alongside claims he was related to Vincent Lingiari and opposed to the Voice.
"Vincent Lingiari's grandson is voting no!" Mr Mundine claimed on social media on multiple occasions.
In a phone interview, however, Stewart Lingiari told FactLab: "I'm nowhere near Vincent Lingiari. I'm not his grandson."
This was confirmed by Vincent Lingiari's family, members of whom told Guardian Australia that while they knew of Stewart, he wasn't a relative.
"Stewart Lingiari lives in Ngukurr, a small community north-east of Katherine," Guardian Australia reported. "The Lingiari family say they are from Kalkarindji, a community more than 770 kilometres or 12 hours' drive away."
A quote attributed to Stewart Lingiari also appeared on the website of Fair Australia, an anti-Voice organisation led by Senator Price.
"I don't want you to look at me differently," Mr Lingiari is claimed to have said. "That's why I'm voting no."
But speaking to FactLab, Mr Lingiari said he was unsure what the Voice referendum was about and accused the "No" campaign of feeding him the quote during a trip to Canberra to discuss unrelated matters.
"I was told to say that word there: 'I don't want you to look at me differently. That's why I am voting no'," Mr Lingiari said in an account corroborated by another Indigenous man present at the Canberra meetings.
"If I would have [known] what this Voice was, I wouldn't have said this. This is what the cameraman told me to say."
For his part, Mr Mundine has insisted that Mr Lingiari was introduced to him as Vincent's grandson, telling the ABC's RN Breakfast program the man was identified by "his group, the Aboriginal people who come from Ngukurr" following a media conference.
"I spent two days with him and that's how he was introduced to people," Mr Mundine said.
"I'm very confused, just as much as everyone else is".
Separately, Mr Mundine defended his use of the term "grandson", telling both Guardian Australia and NITV he meant it in a "cultural kinship" sense.
"Kinship structure doesn't mean you have to be blood related in Aboriginal communities," he told the Guardian.
"We have many fathers, mothers, children, grandparents. I have grandchildren but they're not my blood relations."
As for whether Stewart Lingiari had been provided with a script, Mr Mundine responded: "I categorically say that isn't true."
However, he confirmed to the ABC that the ads featuring Mr Lingiari would be taken down "sometime in the next day or two". Later that day, they had been removed from the Fair Australia website.
In a statement, Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney said the misidentification and allegedly fabricated quotes "raised real questions about the credibility of the "No" campaign".
What does this video of a woman eating a worm have to do with the World Economic Forum?
A years-old video featuring footage of a woman eating a worm for comedic effect has been reshared dozens of times on Twitter this week alongside a claim that it depicts an adviser to the World Economic Forum (WEF).
In the video, a woman spots a worm and remarks excitedly "the first worm of the summer!", before slurping up the wriggling creature off the ground. (You can view the video below, if you're game.)
In reposts of the clip uploaded to social media platforms this week, users wrote: "No, this is not an escaped patient of a mental hospital, this is Hilda Ettsevorm, adviser to the World Economic Forum."
But no such person exists, let alone someone who advises the WEF.
As CheckMate discovered, a Google search of the name "Hilda Ettsevorm" (presumably, Ettsevorm is meant to be pronounced "eat ze vorm" with a stereotypical German accent) did not throw up any result that predated this week, nor is there any reference to the name on the WEF website.
In an email, a spokesman for the WEF confirmed it had "no adviser of this name".
"This is made up in order to discredit the important work that the World Economic Forum does on serious global challenges," the spokesman added.
In fact, the clip features a Canadian woman named Erin Clark, who appears to have first uploaded the video to TikTok in early 2021, where its shocking nature resulted in it quickly going viral.
While the original clip no longer exists on TikTok (likely due to Ms Clark's account being banned) it remains live on her Instagram page, where it was posted on April 24, 2021.
So why have social media users linked the video to the WEF?
A suggestion that the WEF is part of a global agenda to force people to "eat bugs" has taken hold in fringe online circles in recent years and been promoted in the mainstream media by popular figures such as the recently ousted Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
Proponents of the theory point to a number of opinion articles published by the WEF that argue that the meat industry fuels climate change and that insects are an overlooked — and greener — source of protein.
"Our consumption of animal protein is the source of greenhouse gas and climate change," one such article notes. "Insects are an overlooked source of protein and a way to battle climate change."
Importantly, however, there's no evidence the forum wants to force a bug-fuelled diet onto populations.
Indeed, the article acknowledges that many people are "not quite ready to eat an insect" but suggests that bugs could be introduced at other points in the food chain, such as in chicken feed and pet food.
Insinuations about the WEF's stance on insects-as-food tie into the sprawling and amorphous "Great Reset" conspiracy.
That theory has been described by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) as "not so much a single conspiracy theory as a loose grouping of conspiracy theories which differ in their details and are adapted to their time and context".
"The core theme, however, is that [WEF chairperson Klaus] Schwab and the WEF are acting as a Machiavellian hidden hand orchestrating COVID-19 lockdowns and other public health measures in order to achieve their own sinister goals," ISD explained last year in an article produced in partnership with RMIT FactLab.
An article published by America's NPR last month noted that an aversion to eating insects in countries where they are not a traditional part of the diet had "fused" with the Great Reset theory.
"For those who espouse the theory, eating bugs isn't just a matter of disgust or questioning the impacts of climate change," NPR reported. "It's framed as a matter of individual freedom and government control."
Musk backs misleading chart, stokes racial fear
This week, Twitter CEO Elon Musk again waded into the mire of US racial politics after commenting under a tweet that suggested media outlets were overhyping the extent of crime perpetrated by white offenders.
The tweet, which has been reshared more than 30,000 times garnering nearly 18 million views, shows a bar chart of "interracial violent crime incidents" accompanied by the caption: "Perspective is everything."
According to the chart, the number of violent incidents in the US involving black offenders and white victims (548,000) in 2018 was at least nine times higher than when roles were reversed.
Superimposed over the chart is a cartoon cameraman focused only on the smaller number of white offenders and black victims (59,000).
"Odd, why would the media misrepresent the real situation to such an extreme degree?" Mr Musk wrote beneath the post.
But that description would more fairly apply to the tweet in question.
The chart cites as its source a 2018 US Department of Justice report analysing the results of the government's National Crime Victimisation Survey.
Table 14 of that report refers to violent incidents of crime according to the race of both the victims and perpetrators.
Notably, the Twitter user appears to have extrapolated raw counts from these results, whereas the original table presents percentage figures.
Karen Gelb, consultant criminologist and Melbourne University lecturer, told CheckMate that simply comparing the number of criminal incidents across different groups, whether racial or otherwise, "leads to an inaccurate understanding of what's happening".
She explained that it was important to use rates "because raw numbers don't take into account the … number of people who fall into that category".
Viewed this way, the numbers are less stark: black offenders accounted for 15 per cent of violent crime against white victims, while white offenders accounted for 11 per cent of crimes against black victims.
They also reveal that the vast majority of violent incidents against white victims were, in fact, perpetrated by white offenders (62 per cent). The same rule applies to black victims and black perpetrators (70 per cent).
"It's a well-accepted fact that most crime is intra-racial, meaning it's within the same racial group," Dr Gelb said.
"The kind of cherry-picked and disingenuous comparison … is simply designed to stoke fear."
Perhaps illustrating the meaninglessness of incident counts, the same figures show that the number of white-on-white violent encounters equated to 2.2 million — a figure conveniently missing from the chart.
Edited by Ellen McCutchan and David Campbell
Got a fact that needs checking? Tweet us @ABCFactCheck or send us an email at factcheck@rmit.edu.au
