The side with the statistics you can also find in non-partisan information sources who do not have the incentive to cull their information for partisan purposes.
Right now most mainstream journalists and news media outlets seem to favor the liberal version of history. Are all those people wrong?
Something very interesting is happening to journalism right now.
As you will no doubt be aware, newspapers are folding like...well, newspaper. And then TV stations, particularly the big traditional ones, like ABC, NBC and CBS are all under serious threat, because younger people don't watch them for news anymore. So they're desperate to survive, and they need money in order to do that.
In some countries, in fact, the government has already begun to subsidize conventional news sources heavily. This is a terrible idea, as it makes the journalists entirely dependent for their survival on pleasing the political party that has issued them their money. To criticize such a government is, for them, now suicide. So they no longer have any reason to do investigative journalism or "speak truth to power." If they do, they go down.
On the other side, where people actually ARE paying attention and the government is not subsidizing, the internet, a very few very powerful companies have monopolistic control. If you've been watching the Twitter, Facebook and Google investigations at all, you know what they do to control the news.
So very powerful media companies are now in control of the vast majority of information people are allowed to see. This is a real threat to democracy and voter rights, because democracy depends on the ability of the people to hold all elected officials accountable. But what if their misdeeds are kept invisible? What if their stories and distortions are rigorously promulgated by these monopolies, so that people do not have two-sided information upon which to base their judgments? What then?
And what when an American president picks a fight with the journalists? What when he calls them out for what they are: "fake news"? How are they going to respond to that? It's an existential threat to them, and one that they know makes them horribly vulnerable. Already, just because of the market, they are losing public attention and credibility. People are choosing the internet instead of them. If the President of the United States certifies them as fraudulent in the public eye, what happens to their jobs? Their power? Their future?
So only one party serves the journalists' interests. And it's not the one in power right now.
We've never had such a situation before. But I have watched recent events in the States with total disbelief. I can't believe, for example, that a government official could be caught red-handed, with hard evidence proving his influence-peddling, corruption and collusion with foreign powers, and that information not be reported in the mainstream media. And I can't believe that with all the evidence of election fraud, so many people continue to say to me, "There's absolutely no proof."
Sure there is. The media is not letting you have it. But I got it. And the media also has it. They just don't want the majority of Americans to have it. So astoundingly, they are succeeding quite magnificently in presenting the facade that it doesn't even exist at all.
A few years ago, I don't think they could have gotten away with it. The journalists still thought of themselves as "The Fourth Estate," the watchdogs of government, and the people's providers of the facts. A scandal of this size would have been front page of every newspaper, because it would have sold newspapers, and newspapers needed to be sold. Moreover, news agencies
competed for stories, instead of colluding with the party line. They contradicted and challenged one another, testing each other''s evidence in the public eye. Their controversies sold papers. Now, journalists do not do that at all. They work instead on promulgating the party line, so that they can line up later for the benefits.
And the public? Well, they can all go to Hell in a handcart, as far as most of the media are presently concerned: "They'll believe what we tell them to believe," is the attitude. "We just don't report the news; we make ourselves indispensable by helping the party that is on our side keep the people where they want them to be, in terms of their knowledge and belief. We deliver the vote."
Well, they believe they do, anyway. Only, they aren't as good at it yet as they need to be. They didn't quite manage to deliver the vote as promised; hence the need for widespread, embarrassing voter fraud. But they're clearly getting more able at the game, and shortly the day will come when the story of the mainstream media will be the only story the American people are allowed to get. If they succeed at that, they survive; if they don't succeed, then the market will kill them, because nobody actually wants their product anymore. So their survival will depend utterly on their ability to show they can control public opinion and deliver an obedient citizenry to the overlords.
And believe me, they know that's how it is.
Are we going to suggest that the statements he makes stand or fall on something other than the historical evidence? We shouldn't, of course.