A very common fallacy used by propagandists have the structure:
Person A presents fact X, which appears important, but
Person B doesn't know fact X,
Person A claims media is hiding fact X because they don't want you to know.
B feels it's true because he doesn't know X.
This applies even when X ...
If it's hidden you don't know, but if you don't know doesn't mean it's hidden. You don't know because you don't know. For example, because you don't even spend a minute to do a search for your own. That's the fallacy.
@DavidGudeman It's a fallacy because it uses the fact of people not knowing something to imply it's being hidden, regardless of it's actually being hidden or not.
The problem sounds like a hasty generalization. The only piece of evidence is that the listener does not know something. The offered conclusion is that the entire American media is keeping that knowledge secret.
Folks, the point isn't that the media is truthful, or that people don't keep secrets - it's that this deception in itself doesn't serve as justification for any arbitrary proposition.
@Logikal It sounds like maybe you should turn your comment into an answer. Either way, please delete your comment as comments should not attempt to answer the question, but only clarify.
@Peregring-lk, I submitted an edit that adds a line that should hopefully address the confusion people seem to be having. Please feel free to reject it or build upon it if you think there's a better way to say it.
@DavidGudeman Claiming "it must be" is what makes it a fallacy -- it implies a logical cause and effect. It's like the argument from ignorance proof of God (AKA "God of the gaps") -- we don't know how something happened, so it "must" be a supernatural being. If it were a more qualified "it could be" then the logic is reasonable.
@Logikal I'm not sure what you think is missing, especially after this latest edit. It seems fine to me. Could you be more specific about what needs to change? It's possible that, as you said, this isn't actually a fallacy. But that's best communicated as an answer, not as a comment or change to the question.
@barmar, if the information was not authorized to be all public knowledge then the statement x must be hidden or person x is hiding some information is logically necessary. There is no fallacy if all of the information was not authorized as public domain. Leaked information gets to be known publicly but this leak is not authorized and further information is still hidden for a REASON.
@therubberduck, the way the question is still worded is ambiguous & a slippery fish to grasp with an absolute answer. I need to know absolutely if SOME information x is entirely public knowledge or did someone leak PARTIAL information like is done in press conferences by police, by the military, the federal government, etc clearly authorities make SOME information public & they pick & choose what they give to the public. So the police may tell us John was murdered on the subway but they do not let us know it was all on video clear as day what happened & how it was performed. That is omitted.
@Logikal We live on a world of information noise and some things requires you to be very involved on the topic to know it or where to find (e.g. an expert). Things get worst if you can't read english. Person A presents some conspiracy theory T to a person B that is far from being an expert, and uses a set of cherry picked facts about the matter that looks important and uses such uncontextualized facts to support T, and maliciously explains to B that he is unaware of such facts because the media is intentionally hidding them from you (and everyone) because they don't want you to know T.
@peregring-lk, I get what you are saying but STILL why should person B believe T if there is no way to verify T? Chances are some information IS HIDDEN by authorities. We see this all the time with police departments or the FBI. They cherry pick the information they give to the public about an incident. They NEVER let the public have ALL the information details they KNOW. They don't typically say they collected DNA evidence of the perpetrator & in a few hours we will let you know who it is at a live press conference. They will say there are suspects but will not name each one. Still OMITTING.
@Logikal Person A knows that B is not an expert, is far from thinking to be one, and will spend 0 or close to 0 energy trying to verify the information by himself, because otherwise person B will have to spend a lot of hours to find and properly contextualize the cherry picked facts, and person A is very confident that B won't do that. The facts are not hidden, just out of B's scope because of its low basic knowledge, the language he speaks (not understanding english = more limited to get specialized information), etc.
@Logikal For example, when justifying contemporary illuminati theories based on a string of facts taken from the time of the Knights Templar and choosing cherry picked facts from every century until modern times. Trying to fight theory T requires B to read history books from literally every century since medieval times and regarding different countries. Finally, people A will say the media doesn't want you to know Illuminatis still exists today and are hidding all what they do. Instead of reading books B will happily choose the amazing and shocking theory presented by B and tell his friends
Not a naive person, but a person that instead of expending energy to learn, choose 5 youtube minute videos from a same source instead. It is a fallacy because it manipulates the premises knowing that you WON'T expend the energy that is required to discover that you have been manipulated, and uses the hardness of knowing (because it's technical information or requires reading long books) as synonym of being intentionally hidden.
@DavidGudeman That's how it should be. But conspiracy theorists treat these possibilities as certainties (or at least "very likelies"). That's the fallacy I think the OP is asking about.
@Logikal I think you're conflating validity of the argument with the truth of the conclusion. The fact is, bullet #3 in the question (as it is currently written) does not logically follow from bullets #1 and #2, but people often seem to think it does. The question asks whether there is a special name for that mistake in logic. Note that #3 can be true, easily observed, and even proven logically by other facts, but all of that is irrelevant because the question isn't actually about #3. It is only about one fallacious argument.
@TheRubberDuck there is no deductive argument present. This is INDUCTIVE by definition and cannot be held as deductive fallacies. With inductive reasoning you essentially are reasoning by probability (aka there is an x percentage that the conclusion is true). Furthermore the OP is still withholding details with his own question and then says Person A with a conspiracy theory T is true because someone else is withholding information too must be a fallacy is ironic. The assumption here is there is only one type of TRUTH which is FALSE to begin with. Not enough details for an absolute answer.
Why is it that anything people don't like to be true must be a fallacy? What fallacy is that? You should know that you used at least two fallacies in your question/argument.
Might it be more likely the Question is about some kind of conspiracy, perhaps involving the media? Either way, how can you say this is about Philosophy? 'Name of the fallacy that "you don't know" implies "the media is hiding it from you" ' is not a Question. If 'Name of the fallacy that "you don't know" implies "the media is hiding it from you" ' was a Question, how could that be about Philosophy? Could you rephrase both the Question and the exposition?
Discussion on question by Peregring-l…
Discussion on question by Peregring-l…