The initial airing of History Channel's "Sons of Liberty" was well-received by the audience. However, it has been critiqued to be factually imprecise. According to Thomas Verenna in his article in "Journal of the American Revolution," the network allegedly distorted antiquity to depict the "standard archetype of good and evil."

"While it plays well for those who are in on the secret [i.e., those who know the actual history of the era], if you're looking for facts about the Sons of Liberty or information about the War for American Independence, don't plan on discovering those facts in this miniseries; you won't find them," the piece said.

"Instead of portraying actual historical events and giving each character balance and depth, the writers and producers have gone with a standard archetype of good and evil-you can probably guess which side is good and which is evil," wrote Thomas Verenna.

History.com described the mini-series in its website as a "historical fiction, not a documentary" whose goal is to "capture the spirit of the time, convey the personalities of the main characters, and focus on real events that have shaped our past."

Likewise, according to NY Daily News, Stephen David, writer and one of the executive producers of History Channel's "Sons of Liberty," emphasized on defending the accuracy of the miniseries. David stresses that History Channel's "Son's of Liberty" is "not a documentary" but just a "dramatic interpretation of the events that shaped the country."

"The goal of the miniseries was to recreate this period in colonial America, and the personalities at the center of that incredible drama. We went to great lengths to recreate a living, accurate representation of the time and place, while staying true to the spirit of the revolution," David said.

History Channel's "Sons of Liberty" premiered last January 25 and roughly 3.3 million viewers tuned in to the first night.