https://forward.com/news/686797/heritag ... isemitism/
Although, one user has pointed out that the document might be fabricated:
This almost certainly a fabrication:
- The file naming does not match any of Heritage's other documents
- It used Canva to create these 5 slides, where Heritage tends to use InDesign on a Mac
- The PDF was not flattened, and the watermark was inserted in the middle layer, suggesting it was created at the same time as the text
- The text used a canva fontface not used by any other Heritage documents I could find
- The logo and branding don't match any heritage documents I've seen
At least one other sub has taken this down as a likely fabrication and I'd suggest in 2025 that people be a little more discerning about what they blindly trust.
- There do not appear to be any corroborating sources, and forward.com does not appear to be a highly credible source
https://old.reddit.com/r/privacy/commen ... l/m64cc7z/
https://old.reddit.com/r/privacy/commen ... l/m630ht9/The rabbit hole gets deeper.
Obviously someone at this publication had to edit the PDF to insert their watermark-- which they did by sliding it into the middle layer. The PDF wasn't flattened and the watermark was indistinguishable to me from the other text and graphics, which is pretty unusual.
And because of the metadata, it seems clear that they did that edit in Canva. Except, that doesn't explain why the text uses a fontface literally called Canva, unless the whole document was created at the same time, watermark and content.
Everything about it is wierd. Heritage is not a commercial entity, who are they pitching this to? Upper executives? Then why is it such a crummy deck done on web-based software?
And why would it reuse the project name and email address of the OverwatchOversight Project which has nothing to do with Wikipedia?
And why does the watermark appear (to my poor PDF detective skills) to be underneath some of the other elements, with the whole thing not flattened?
They absolutely edited this-- the question is to what extent. And you might say, "well maybe they used canva to add the watermark"-- but then why does the text use Canva fontfaces?
The whole thing suggests that it is a fake by Forward.com. There's no plausible world in which a Heritage Foundation document was created outside of Canva with Canva fontfaces, or that this outlet just happened to add their watermark with the exact same software as Heritage.