Editorial Standards
Our Methodology.
Every standard, visible.
This page explains exactly how we work — what we cover, how we verify it, how we score it, and what happens when we get it wrong. We are not neutral. We follow the primary documentary record wherever it leads. What we claim is not neutrality but rigor — and the two are not the same thing.
5tiers
Source hierarchy
10pts
Evidence score max
4types
Content categories
0days
Correction delay target
01
What we cover
and why
We do not attempt to cover everything. The volume of distorted framing in Western coverage of Palestine is too large for a single platform to address comprehensively. We apply selection criteria to every piece we publish. Click each section to see what qualifies.
Myth Debunking
Historical, legal, military, demographic, political claims
+
1
The claim circulates widely in Western mainstream media, political discourse, or public conversation.2
It is either factually false, materially misleading, or stripped of context in ways that produce a false impression.3
Primary documentary evidence exists to examine it rigorously. We do not debunk obscure claims — only the myths that do the most damage because they reach the most people.Propaganda Literacy
Technique explainers and coverage audits of named outlets
+
1
The technique is documented in academic literature on media framing, propaganda, or cognitive psychology.2
Real examples from coverage of Palestine can be identified and cited — not asserted.3
For coverage audits specifically: the piece being analyzed is from a named, identifiable mainstream outlet and the framing failure can be demonstrated with evidence.Humans in Palestine
Documented accounts of Palestinian daily life
+
1
The source is a named, credentialed journalist or a verified local documentation organization.2
The account can be cross-referenced against at least one independent source.3
The story documents ordinary life — not only extreme violence. Humanization requires the full picture, not only suffering.
02
Source hierarchy
Not all sources carry equal evidential weight. The hierarchy reflects not political preference but resistance to dismissal — the higher a source sits, the harder it is for a skeptical reader to reject on grounds of bias. Click any tier to expand.
1
Primary Institutional & Legal Documents Primary
UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, ICJ rulings and advisory opinions, ICC filings, OCHA situation reports, UNRWA field documentation, UNOSAT satellite analysis. These are the hardest sources to dispute — their methodology is transparent, their provenance documented, and they carry the formal weight of international institutions that even Western governments recognize.
2
Human Rights Organizations with Published Methodologies Strong
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, Al-Haq, and UN Special Rapporteur reports. Each publishes its investigative methodology alongside its findings. We cite their conclusions when the methodology is sound and the findings have not been credibly disputed by primary evidence.
3
Israeli Historians, Legal Scholars & Civil Society Strategic
This tier carries particular credibility for Western audiences because these sources cannot be dismissed as hostile to Israel. Key sources: Peace Now, Israeli Supreme Court rulings, and historians including Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé, and Avi Shlaim. When an Israeli institution documents violations, that evidence is structurally more resistant to the “biased source” dismissal.
4
Verified Field Journalism Verified
Reporting from named journalists with established editorial accountability, working for outlets with published corrections policies. Includes +972 Magazine, Middle East Eye, The Intercept, and specific investigative pieces where sourcing is transparent. We evaluate individual pieces, not publications — no outlet is uniformly reliable.
5
Testimony & Firsthand Accounts Contextual
Valid as evidence but always labeled explicitly as such. Never presented as institutional verification. Testimony is used to humanize and illustrate, not to prove. We do not cite Wikipedia, anonymous sources, or secondary aggregators as evidence for any factual claim.
03
Handling
conflicting sources
When two credible sources disagree, we do not flatten the disagreement. We document it. Here is our decision logic.
Trigger
Two credible sources disagree on a factual claim
↓
Case A — Same tier conflict
Both sources are Tier 1 or Tier 2. Rare, but occurs. We present both positions, explain the nature of the disagreement, and state clearly what cannot be concluded.
Case B — Cross-tier conflict
Tier 1/2 conflicts with Tier 4. We weight the higher-tier source unless the lower-tier source presents primary documentary evidence that directly contradicts the higher-tier finding.
↓
Resolution available
Evidence supports a clear conclusion. We state it with the supporting sources and acknowledge the conflicting source in the limitations section.
No resolution
Evidence is genuinely contested. We label the piece Verdict: Contested and explain what additional evidence would be needed to resolve it. We do not publish a verdict we cannot defend.
04
Content type labels
Every piece published here carries one of four labels. These labels are not interchangeable — they tell you exactly what standard of evidence was applied and what role the editorial voice plays.
Verified Factual Record
Every significant claim supported by Tier 1 or Tier 2 sources
The counter-narrative is stated and examined. Limitations are explicitly documented. This is the highest standard we apply and the label we use most sparingly. Carries a full Evidence Strength Score.
Analytical Piece
Factual claims sourced, interpretation is editorial
The facts are sourced. The argument about what those facts mean is ours. Readers should engage with it critically. Carries an Evidence Strength Score with an editorial note on the analytical conclusions.
Media Audit
Examination of how a specific published news piece frames its subject
Facts about the original article — what it said, omitted, how it framed — are documented. Identification of propaganda techniques is analytical. Both layers are labeled clearly within the piece. Carries both scores.
Human Account
Documenting Palestinian life through verified testimony
Sources are named and verification methods stated. This content type does not carry an evidence score — it is not making a factual argument. It is documenting a human reality. Sourcing is transparent.
05
The scoring system
Every Verified Factual Record and Analytical Piece carries an Evidence Strength Score. Media Audit pieces carry a second score — the Framing Audit Score. Below is an example of how both scores appear on a published article.
Evidence Strength Score
8 / 10
Source Tier2 / 2
Source Convergence2 / 2
Recency1 / 2
Uncertainty Disclosed2 / 2
Verifiability1 / 2
8–10
Structurally solid, difficult to credibly dispute
5–7
Well-supported with acknowledged gaps
0–4
Does not meet publication standard
Framing Audit Score
9 / 10
Language Distortion2 / 2
Omission2 / 2
Source Hierarchy Bias2 / 2
Headline / Body Divergence2 / 2
Pattern Consistency1 / 2
8–10
Systematic, documentable framing failure
5–7
Notable framing issues, possibly incidental
0–4
Framing issues minor or unverifiable
06
Our limitations
This platform has real limitations that readers should understand before citing or sharing our work.
01
Run by one person
A single editor cannot monitor all Western outlets, verify all claims in real time, or respond to every significant coverage event. We cover what we can cover rigorously. We do not publish under-sourced pieces to maintain volume.
02
Selection is not exhaustive
The myths we debunk and the media pieces we audit are chosen because they are widely circulated and demonstrably documentable. Absence from this platform does not mean a claim is true or that a piece of coverage is sound.
03
Knowledge has a horizon
We update pieces when new primary evidence emerges, but we cannot guarantee that every piece reflects the most current available data at all times. Every piece carries a Last Verified date. If you have found newer primary evidence that affects a published piece, contact us.
04
We are not neutral — and we say so
We do not claim neutrality and we reject the false equivalence that neutrality requires. The documentary record has a weight that is not evenly distributed between the parties to this conflict. We follow the evidence where it leads. What we claim is not neutrality but rigor.
07
Corrections policy
We make mistakes. When we do, we correct them visibly. Here is exactly what happens from the moment an error is reported.
Step 01 — Submission
You submit a dispute
Cite the specific claim, identify the primary source that contradicts it, and contact us. We review every submission that meets this standard. We do not respond to submissions that dispute our conclusions without providing primary documentary evidence.
Step 02 — Review
We verify against the primary record
We check the submitted source against our source hierarchy. If it is Tier 1 or Tier 2 and directly contradicts a published claim, correction proceeds. If the source is lower-tier or the dispute is interpretive rather than factual, we respond explaining why.
Step 03 — Correction
Published visibly at the top of the piece
Every correction is published at the top of the affected piece, marked with the date of correction and a plain-language explanation of what was wrong and what replaced it. We do not make quiet edits. We do not delete pieces.
Step 04 — Log
Added to the public corrections log
Every correction is added to our publicly accessible corrections log with a link to the affected piece, a timestamp, and the nature of the error. This log is permanent and searchable.
08
What this platform
is not
Clarity about what we are not is as important as clarity about what we are.
✕
Not a news outlet. We do not break news or report events in real time.
✕
Not affiliated with any political party, government, or advocacy organization.
✕
Not institutionally funded. No grants, no government support, no donor organizations.
✕
Not advertising-supported. No advertiser has any influence over editorial decisions.
✕
Not neutral. We follow the primary documentary record. The evidence has weight that is not evenly distributed.
✕
Not the official position of any organization. This is one editor, one standard, one commitment.
One editor.
One standard.
The primary record.
One standard.
The primary record.
Every piece on this platform is held to the standards described on this page. If you believe we have failed those standards, the corrections process is open. If you want to understand how a specific piece was sourced and scored, every element is visible on the article itself.
“To document is to resist erasure.”