Name of the fallacy that "you don't know" implies "the media is hiding it from you"

Question

A very common fallacy used by propagandists has the structure:

• Person A presents fact X as support for a theory T that person A tries to prove, adding continuous suggestions about a conspiracy, but
• Person B doesn't know fact X,
• Person A claims the media are hiding fact X because they don't want you to know.
• Since person B didn't know about fact X, he now feels it is true that there is a conspiracy to try to keep X secret from widespread knowledge.

This applies even when X is public knowledge for those continuously involved in some topic.

This fallacy portrays fact X as "just another proof" that the worldwide media is being controlled by governments or elites, X is morally bad, they are consistently lying to you, etc.

However, although there may be examples of this happening, it's not a logical argument because there may be another explanation for why you don't know fact X.

Does this fallacy have a name?

NOTE: It's important to note that this fallacy is made by B himself, not A. A isn't giving any explanation about X's secrecy, he directly claims that "X is being omitted by big media". Person B is who unconsciously reinforces A's axiomatic claim (media is hidding it) by adding a premise based on his own experience (I'm surprised by not knowing it). Why B relates his surprise of not knowing it with the validity of being hidden?

• A. Due to A's suggestions, B has been biased and fact X is now temporarily attached to "secretism" in B's mind, which makes him forgets during the course of A's explanation that other causes are possible, like for example X not being relevant at all.

• B. There's also an unconscious sense that, even if person B doesn't watch TV or read newspapers, and because we live on a strongly interconnected social world, the relevant points of what big media say should "reach me" some way or another, through friends, family conversations, social media posts, etc; a false feeling that "widespread info unavoidably will fall towards me too" just because I live connected to the world and not in a cave.

X is being hidden is a B's unconscious (and fallacious) personal conclusion matching A's claim in response of his suprise after knowing the important fact X.

Answer 1

This sounds like a Furtive Fallacy; the presumption of a malicious and secretive authority is supposed to serve as supportive evidence for an otherwise ungrounded claim.

Answer 2

I'll go out on a limb and suggest this informal fallacy is at its root a False Dilemma:

When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy of false dilemma.

The premise of the argument is not made explicit it in the OP (as is often the case in natural discussions), but I would argue that there is an implicit false choice involved here, namely that:

• Either the media broadcast X
• Or the media is hiding X

If the media were broadcasting X, then you would know X*. You don't know X, thus (if we accept the False Dilemma) the media must be hiding X.

But there may be many reasons why the media might not be broadcasting X. It may not be interesting. It may not actually be true (though that doesn't always stop the media ;) ). There might be more important news. And so on.

Addressing this implicit assumption would be a good way to counter person A's argument. (As would bringing to light any other hidden assumption that people might disagree on, for that matter.)

*) The premise that you would know about all the things the media are broadcasting is itself most likely false as well. The argument implicitly relies on this premise, but you might check afterwards and find the media indeed hasn't broadcast X, in which case you might still fall for the False Dilemma.

Answer 3

Appeal to Probability

There's a difference between rigorous, deductive logic; and practical, heuristic logic.

Rigorously, it's possible I just happened to miss the news every time a specific event was talked about.

Realistically, if I watch the news a lot and haven't heard a particular, important fact concerning a popular subject, it's most likely because the media I'm watching doesn't want me to know that fact.

A fallacy only occurs when we represent the second logical statement (this is probably true) as proving the first (this must be true). Doing so is known as an appeal to probability.

(Obviously, a fact concerning a subject almost nobody is talking about doesn't have a good likelihood of reaching me. So the second bit of logic isn't always valid even as a statement of probability.)

Answer 4

Neither party “knows” which means that until more evidence is provided, the rational choice is to go their separate ways. The outcome of their decisions will provide more substation than continuing the argument.

When people “agree to disagree,” nothing is really established. The problem is that people who say they “agree to disagree to each others faces yet go to a ballot box to force an agreement behind each other’s backs is disingenuous. This is what makes democracy tyranny and not the best form of social engagement.

A republic where people who agree come together to operate on their shared ideals while leaving others to operate on their own ideals is the best and most natural form of social interaction. By doing this, the fruits of their ideals and labors based on those ideals becomes the substantiating force behind their claims. Words seldom convince people of anything these days, but an example is difficult to refute.

I can give countless examples of segregation in the natural and technological realms proving it is the best mode of operation, but people are too conditioned to believe the opposite because of governmental and corporate machinations. Large and complex systems decentralize naturally because those are the most efficient, stable, and least prone to corruption. Those systems are always more superior to centralized systems. In the case of social systems, decentralization is also the most moral.