In the same week, Graciela Bianchi has shared two fake news from her Twitter account, which she uses regularly, being what in the social media environment is understood as heavy userthat is, a person who uses their accounts a lot.
Last Sunday, Colombia elected its new president, the economist and former guerrilla Gustavo Petro, and Bianchi decided to publish a photograph in which, supposedly, Petro appears together with the powerful drug trafficker Pablo Escobar. The truth is that photography it is falsesuch as It was confirmed by different fake news verification platforms. Dozens of Internet users pointed out her mistake to the legislator, but she remained firm, affirming without evidence that Petro would be related to guerrillas that supposedly would have been financed by drug traffickers.
This Tuesday, he spread false information again: he shared a note from the newspaper El Observador entitled “Claim of a rape complainant in Cordón was key to initiating a summary of Iglesias,” and added for his part: “To be clearer about the wife of the former prosecutor Díaz is the Director of the Department of Victims of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. All in family”.
The former court prosecutor himself, Jorge Díaz, responded to these assertions, who replied without mentioning her: “I do not spend gunpowder on chimangos, but taxpayers have the right to know that my wife never worked in the Prosecutor’s Office. She is a professional and exercises freely”.
And he added: “If the legislators did not have immunity for their statements to offend, I would not have bothered them.”
The journalist Gabrile Pereyra also criticized her for spreading misleading information: “Paraphrasing Wilson: when an Italian comes out intelligent, an Eco comes out, when a beast comes out, a Bianchi comes out: the lady criticized Jorge Díaz for being the husband of a hierarch of Prosecutor, who is actually the wife of ANOTHER prosecutor. The lady does not need fueros, she is unimputable”.
A common practice
The legislator for the National Party, Graciela Bianchi, is known on Twitter for tweeting a large number of times a day, at any time of the day, and also for distributing false information in a practice that has become common in her account.
In June 2021, he tried to illustrate how Uruguayan vaccinators went to any corner of the country to bring anticovid vaccines, showing a photo of a couple of these people traveling in a horse-drawn cart on a dirt road.
“This is a photo that represents Uruguay today like few others. For many to think before talking about the government’s strategy to face the pandemic and to carry out vaccination. We are going out together. @LuisLacallePou ”, he commented along with the image.
However, that would become one of his most infamous fake news: the photograph corresponded to two Argentine vaccinators in the province of Santiago del Estero, as can be verified in various media of the neighboring daddies. Despite the fact that dozens of Twitter users pointed out the error, to this day the legislator continues to choose to leave it on the air and not delete it.
This is a photo that represents Uruguay today like few others. For many to think before talking about the government’s strategy to face the pandemic and to carry out vaccination. We are going out together. @LuisLacallePoupic.twitter.com/ce3dSJ32dL
– Graciela Bianchi (@gbianchi404) June 1, 2021
In April 2022, the ultra-conservative legislator returned to her practice of sharing information that she had not previously corroborated, and tweeted an image in which she says that “according to the UN”, Luis Lacalle Pou is the best president in America and the fifth in the world. . “Give me a ballot box that I will vote for him again !!!”, adds the photograph. “Now we are back on the path that Uruguay should never have abandoned,” said the legislator.
True to form, that tweet did not delete him either and is still available on his Twitter account: it has been shared almost 700 times.
The ranking that supposedly would have placed Lacalle Pou in those places does not exist, therefore, the statement is false, as we explain in the following note:
