LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.
- Overall, we rate Action on Armed Violence Left-Center biased for its human rights–oriented policy positions, strong criticism of militarism (especially Israeli military actions and Western foreign policy), and advocacy framing, and High for factual reporting due to transparent methodology, credible sourcing, and absence of failed fact checks.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER (-4.8)
Factual Reporting: HIGH (1.5)
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
History
Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) is a London-based charity that records, investigates, and disseminates evidence of armed violence against civilians worldwide, with a mission to ensure civilian protection and end such violence in conflict. Founded in the 1990s (originally Landmine Action), AOAV has contributed to numerous international disarmament agreements, including the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty (1997), the Convention on Cluster Munitions (2008), and the Arms Trade Treaty (2014). Its work is cited in UN forums, academic research, and major media outlets.
Read our profile on the UK’s media and government.
Funded by / Ownership
AOAV is a registered UK charity. Major funders include the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (via INEW) as disclosed here. Additional revenue is generated through public donations via Donorbox. All other funding is reported in their annual reports. There is no evidence of corporate or government donor influence compromising editorial content.
Analysis / Bias
AOAV’s reporting combines quantitative research, such as its annual Explosive Violence Monitors, with qualitative investigations into manufactured weapons, improvised explosive devices, and gun violence. It advocates for international treaties restricting weapons that harm civilians and has been critical of both state and non-state actors, including the UK and US militaries, over civilian casualties (British militarism).
Its coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is strongly critical of Israeli military actions and lobbying, including detailed examinations of how ELNET-sponsored British military veteran delegations may promote pro-IDF narratives while omitting humanitarian perspectives. Reports scrutinize veteran statements, potential propaganda effects, and financial opacity in lobbying. AOAV also publishes opinion-driven commentary on geopolitical events, such as Trump and Netanyahu’s 2025 Washington meeting, using charged language (“mockery of justice,” “political pageant”) that signals a left-leaning, human rights-oriented perspective.
While advocacy language and framing favor humanitarian law and civilian protection, consistent with progressive and anti-militarist policy positions, AOAV’s research is transparent, methodology-driven, and well-sourced from reputable organizations. Reports on weapons, IEDs, and the arms trade are data-heavy and peer-reviewed, supporting a High factual rating despite their clear editorial stance.
Failed Fact Checks
- None found from IFCN-accredited fact-checkers.
Overall, we rate Action on Armed Violence Left-Center biased for its human rights–oriented policy positions, strong criticism of militarism (especially Israeli military actions and Western foreign policy), and advocacy framing, and High for factual reporting due to transparent methodology, credible sourcing, and absence of failed fact checks. (D. Van Zandt 8/10/2025)
Source: https://aoav.org.uk/
Last Updated on August 10, 2025 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources