PRO-SCIENCE
These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources.
- Overall, we rate PublicHealth.org as Pro-Science due to its focus on educational content while maintaining a low political bias. We also rate it mostly factual in reporting rather than high because it includes direct citations to reputable sources yet requires regular updates for outdated sources.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE (-0.5)
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL (2.0)
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
History
PublicHealth.org is a comprehensive online resource focused on public health education and information. Launched in 2013, Public Health aims to provide reliable information about public health careers, education, and current issues. It serves as a guide for students, professionals, and the general public interested in the field of public health. PublicHealth.org is headquartered in Seattle, WA.
Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
PublicHealth.org is owned and operated by Red Ventures, a media company specializing in digital content and marketing. This information is disclosed at the bottom of the PublicHealth.org website. The site generates revenue through advertisements, sponsored content, and partnerships with educational institutions.
Analysis / Bias
PublicHealth.org’s content is characterized by a neutral tone and factual reporting style. However, it’s important to note that Red Ventures employs an AI content engine to generate and manage a significant portion of its digital content across various platforms. This AI-driven approach can influence the nature of the articles produced, as it focuses on optimizing content for search engines and user engagement.
In the article “Obesity and Public Health,” the information provided is useful and relevant to the topic. However, some of the hyperlinks within the article lead to outdated sources from 2012 and 2014. This reliance on older data can detract from the article’s credibility and suggests a need for regular updates to ensure the content remains current and accurate. For instance, the hyperlink for the prevalence of obesity leads to a 2013 CDC report, which may not reflect the most recent statistics or developments in public health related to obesity. Additionally, some articles contain broken links, such as those leading to the WHO Bulletin, affecting credibility and user experience.
Another example is the article “Bachelor’s in Public Health,” which provides comprehensive information about obtaining a bachelor’s degree in public health. The article covers various aspects, including career opportunities, core coursework, and potential earnings. This article includes direct citations to credible sources such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and Payscale for Salary Research. These citations enhance the article’s credibility by providing authoritative data.
Additionally, the article features a section on “Featured Online Programs,” which includes links to online bachelor’s programs from Southern New Hampshire University, Walden University, Purdue Global, and Herzing University. These programs are affiliates, as indicated by the “Learn More About Our Partners” section, suggesting a promotional relationship. This affiliation indicates a potential bias toward promoting these programs, which readers should know when evaluating the information provided.
PublicHealth.org’s advertising disclosure states that its writers and editors make independent product recommendations without influence from the business team. Red Ventures, its parent company, uses AI for content generation, which leads to questions about human writers and the authenticity of this claim.
In general, while PublicHealth.org aims to provide comprehensive and factual information, the use of AI content generation and outdated sources in some articles might affect the freshness and transparency of its content. Regular updates and inclusion of the latest data are essential to maintain the site’s credibility and usefulness.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate PublicHealth.org as Pro-Science due to its focus on educational content while maintaining a low political bias. We also rate it mostly factual in reporting rather than high because it includes direct citations to reputable sources yet requires regular updates for outdated sources. (M. Huitsing 07/28/2024) Updated (02/15/2025)
Source: https://www.publichealth.org/
Last Updated on February 15, 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