Most of the historical facts were recorded by yazeeds own men, for gloating over 'victory'. Other statements were from obsevers who werent invloved on either side, but mainly duped into thinking the Imam (as) were merely rebels. The survivors of kerbala, i.e. Bibi Zainab (as) and Imam Sajjad (as), the biggest and most authentic witnesses, themselves told the events again and again and that was the point when azadari actually started.
True indo-pak zakirs may exaggerate the event, and that is well known amongst most shias. It is also the reason there is always a rift between the aalims and the zakirs, the latter being known more for their stage drama than thier factual knowledge. They generally seen as token piece who whip up audience emotions, and cater generally for the larger uneducated audience, as opposed to the serious alims whose lecture probably go right over thier heads.
The alims however are are the main authorities and are generally taken more seriously.
Thank you for admitting that most of the Shias fall in the category of uneducated masses who are whipped up in emotions over the exaggerated tales. There is also a faction who tries to explain what the martyrs may have been thinking at the time of the battle or right before their death. These kind of tales are repeated over and over and over again until the kid cannot see the truth and produces a fairy tale version of Karbala which like it or not most of the shias believe in now.