How did fact-checkers trace the fabricated BuzzReport247 article that alleged Alex Pretti was fired?
Executive summary
Fact-checkers traced the viral claim that Alex Pretti had been fired to a single fabricated story published on the website Buzzreport247, and then dismantled that narrative by showing the article contained invented sources, unverifiable details and imagery that did not match Pretti — while documenting rapid amplification on social platforms [1] [2] [3].
1. The origin: a single fake story on Buzzreport247
Investigators pinpointed the allegation’s origin to a Buzzreport247 piece headlined that a “hospital director” said Pretti had been fired amid multiple complaints, a post that included a named but untraceable source, “Dr Elena Vasquez,” and specific dates of dismissal that were not corroborated by any hospital records [1] [4].
2. What fact‑checkers found wrong inside the article
Fact-checking outlets showed the Buzzreport247 story contained fabricated quotes and claims — including that Pretti worked at a place called “Lakeshore Medical Center” and was let go after an internal probe — while public records and reporting indicate Pretti was affiliated with Veterans Affairs care and there is no evidence he ever worked at the named hospital [1] [5] [6].
3. Verifying sources and the missing Dr. Elena Vasquez
Reporters searched for the Dr. Elena Vasquez cited by Buzzreport247 and found no link between that name and the alleged hospital, undermining the story’s central attribution and prompting multiple outlets to label the report fabricated [1] [4] [5].
4. Tracing amplification: social posts, screenshots and archive traces
After Buzzreport247 published the piece, it was copied into screenshots and shared on X and Facebook where a post claiming Pretti had been fired amassed huge attention; BBC Verify and others noted an X post seen nearly two million times that promoted the Buzzreport247 claims, and the original Buzzreport247 page was captured in web archives that fact‑checkers used to document the article’s content [2] [7] [1].
5. Cross‑checks: images, personnel records and independent reporting
While the bogus article supplied images and assertions, independent verification revealed that two viral photos circulated as “Pretti in drag” were misattributed and traced to other social accounts, and mainstream reporting pointed out there was no public record linking Pretti to the Lakeshore center or to the person quoted in the Buzzreport247 piece [3] [5] [8].
6. How outlets characterized Buzzreport247 and why that matters
Multiple fact‑checkers, including Reuters, Hindustan Times, IBTimes and others, explicitly described the Buzzreport247 article as fabricated or part of a fake‑news origin for the firing allegation, and they used that characterization to justify debunking posts that corrected social media narratives [9] [4] [5].
7. Limits and lingering questions the reporting did not answer
Reporting clearly shows the chain from Buzzreport247 to viral social posts and documents the factual errors in the piece, but available sources do not identify who operates Buzzreport247 or definitively explain the motive behind publishing the fabricated story, so investigators stopped short of attributing intent beyond noting the article was false [1] [4].
8. Why the tracing matters for the broader narrative
By isolating a single manufactured article, validating its archive, checking named sources and exposing misattributed images, fact‑checkers interrupted an amplification loop that would otherwise have cemented a damaging story about Pretti’s employment history — a pattern observers say is common in post‑incident misinformation campaigns [1] [3] [2].