Amr Rageh
The gap between what happened and what was published
This platform was built and is run by a single person — me.
I am an investigative journalist and science writer with experience covering conflict zones, humanitarian crises, and political violence. I work across Arabic and English and have spent years reporting on stories where the gap between what happened and what was published was wide enough to matter.
“I built this platform because that gap — in coverage of Palestine specifically — is not incidental. It is structural.”
The omissions are consistent. The framing choices are recurring. The myths are durable precisely because they are rarely examined against the primary record in a format accessible to a general Western audience. This platform is my attempt to build that format.
Professional background
My journalism has focused on conflict, humanitarian science, and evidence-based reporting — with a consistent emphasis on the gap between institutional narrative and documented reality. I have covered geopolitical events across the Middle East and North Africa, with particular attention to how Western media frames stories that originate in the Arab world.
In parallel, I work as a science writer and brand strategist, with a deep interest in cognitive science, the neuroscience of persuasion, and the psychology of how people form and resist beliefs. That research — which is also the subject of a book I am writing on the science of propaganda — directly informs the Propaganda Literacy section of this platform.
What I am — and what I am not
I am not a Palestinian. I do not speak on behalf of Palestinians, and this platform does not claim to. What I can offer is a trained investigative eye, a commitment to primary sources, and the editorial discipline to say clearly when evidence is strong, when it is incomplete, and when a question cannot yet be answered.
I am not neutral — and I do not pretend to be. The documentary record has a weight that is not evenly distributed. What I claim is not neutrality but rigor: the same standard applied to every piece, every source, every verdict, regardless of what conclusion it supports.
Every editorial decision on this platform — what to cover, how to frame it, which sources to trust, when to publish a correction — is mine. The standards are documented on the methodology page. I am accountable to them.
If you believe something here is wrong
The corrections process is open. If you believe a published piece contains a factual error, cite the specific claim, identify the primary source that contradicts it, and submit it through the disputes form on the methodology page. Every submission that meets the evidence standard is reviewed.
If you want to understand how a specific piece was sourced and scored, every element is visible on the article itself — the source tier breakdown, the evidence score, the limitations section, and the last verified date.