ABSTRACT The study discusses the difference between the written and well-documented history and the narrated history transmitted by narrators who witnessed historical events on which many researchers and historians based their theories later on. It also shows that relying on oral histories is very dangerous; therefore, the recipient of the oral narrative should be careful in dealing with that narrative and not fall into the trap of one of these accounts when it carried new information. The oral narrative may be honest, purposeful and serve its scientific purpose although it may be caused a catastrophe for the readers because of the exaggeration, misinformation and misleading towards others. Consequently, its presence could be more dangerous than its absence. This study shed a light on the development of regional and international media, which enable the researchers and the historians to benefit of witnesses’ narrations concerning important issues that for many reasons the researchers ignored just as information transmitted via satellite channels. In addition, the study shows that in order for the oral narrative to be acceptable to both the reader and the listener, the researcher must bring out the anonymous stories in the narrator’s consciousness, but in a proper manner, without exaggerations. This study contains brief models of the most important oral narrations that it can be easily trust. It contains also models of exaggerated narrations, which may affect negatively on historiography process. Key words: oral narration, objective, non-objective, Palestinian case, recorded history.