Last updated on September 7th, 2021 at 04:00 pm
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information reporting that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.
- Overall, we rate Act.TV Left biased based on sourcing and story selection that favors the left. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High, due to a lack of transparency regarding ownership and funding.
Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
According to Act.TV’s about page they are “an online video network to help progressive activists #ResistTrump and fight for a political revolution. We specialize in the rapidly growing world of Facebook video.” Act.TV also has written articles covering political news. The current executive editor is Sandi Behrns.
Funded by / Ownership
The website does not clearly indicate ownership; however, Bob Fertik and Harry Waisbren are listed as co-founders. It is uncertain how Act.TV is funded as they do not utilize display advertising or have an obvious donation link.
Analysis / Bias
In review, Act.TV presents news with a left-wing bias as all articles and videos tend to favor the liberal policy. There is the moderate use of loaded language in headlines and articles such as: If You Thought Paul Ryan was Bad, Meet the Racist Running for His Seat. Articles are generally well-sourced, and videos tend to come from other left-biased sources such as MSNBC and CNN.
A factual search reveals that Act. TV has either not failed a fact check or has not been fact-checked.
Overall, we rate Act.TV Left biased based on sourcing and story selection that favors the left. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High, due to a lack of transparency regarding ownership and funding. (D. Van Zandt 2/1/2018) Updated (9/07/2021)