I have to agree with you, one of the reasons could be the "left" propaganda machine were traditional gate-keepers, so withholding data would be easier way to lie, and the "right" propaganda machine is disruptive and attention-seeking given its untraditional foundation, needs "sensationalist red meat".

The traditional post Eisenhower media infrastructure _was_ essentially conservative.

I think your dichotomy here is not left/right but populist/non-populist (aka liberal[1]).

[1] the term liberal has been overloaded for some time now. But it’s important to understand the distinctions. The gist is that most of the deeply conservative thinkers in our post WW2 history believed in a liberal socio-economic order: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

This is nonsense both-sides-ism. The right very obviously redacts true data (just look at Fox News re: Mueller). And the issue is not just whether people lie and omit facts. You have to consider the the magnitude and motivation behind those mistruths (Obama is a Muslim, Clinton conspiracies, climate change denialism), and what people do with that. Are they open to fact checking, or openly hostile to it?

you haven't negated my point, nor are you self-aware enough to realize that obviating "fact checking" is a primary goal of redaction (the typical strategy of the left). an idea that is absent is by definition excepted from scrutiny

frankly you are just echoing the Vox/Atlantic script...alternative viewpoints are "fake" or "conspiratorial"...because obviously no one armed with the facts could possibly disagree with the prevailing worldview of the NYT, HuffPost etc

critical thinking in 2017 isn't about filtering out obvious BS like Fox news...it is about filtering the much more subtle BS from Vox, Atlantic etc

and just to show you this isn't political for me...I at least have respect for sites like TheTrace that clearly present themselves as issue PR platforms, even if I 100% disagree with their views