911 and the Propaganda Model

[sleahead]

3. The reasons why it would have been imploded are irrelevant. We have the known suspicion, rgarding the tenants/contents, but logically, this matters not at all

.


Well, it does matter if you ever present your "evidence" to anybody. You will be aske about motive and you will say:


"We have the known suspicion, rgarding the tenants/contents"

And then your problem will be waiting for the laughter to die down.

 

[A W Smith]

i did it today at Speakers Corner in London, and the reaction was as unanimous as it always is. Very very simple, though it does require a) intellect, and b) intellectua honesty, Your movement is lacking for certain in one, and most probably in the other. Sad though it is to say.

OK I will go through it very slowly for you now,
........ Why would citizens of London....., Remember a property loss...... that happened in another country...... six years ago?

 

[SpitfireIX]

I will repeat the point, to address all the others, which is very simple, and which none of you choose to address- the indicator of censorship is not whether you, or i think it should have been reported, rather what the public thinks. Go out, and tell people that there was a 3rd bulding to fall on 911, a 47 story skyscraper, or better yet, show them the video. Then you will see the newswothiness of this or not. I am going out to do this today; you chaps can do the same.

Frankly, mjd, your contention that everyone should remember all the details of a highly newsworthy event years after it occurred is laughable, and simply serves to demonstrate your desperation to proclaim the likelihood of a US government conspiracy. Here are two examples that thoroughly disprove your contention:

From time to time, over the last 12 years, polls have been taken asking a sample of Americans to name as many justices of the United States Supreme Court as they can. The results have been fairly dismal; in the first poll taken, more people were able to name the original Three Stooges^WP than were able to name three or more (out of nine) Supreme Court justices.

Two results are particularly on point here. First is the case of Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1991, George Bush the Elder nominated Clarence Thomas to fill the seat of retiring justice Thurgood Marshall. Thomas's nomination was controversial to begin with; many considered him unqualified, and felt that Bush had merely selected Thomas because he is black and conservative (Marshall was black and liberal). Toward the end of Thomas's confirmation hearings, however, a former subordinate, Anita Hill, came forward with sensational charges that Thomas had sexually harassed her. Thomas categorically denied the allegations, and both of them (along with supporting witnesses) testifed before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Hill's testimony was extremely graphic, including much crude language which she attributed to Thomas. The hearings were broadcast live on national television, and network news programs repeated the highlights. The controversy was a huge news story; everyone was talking about it. Eventually Thomas was narrowly confirmed by the United States Senate, as Hill and her supporters had failed to make a sufficiently convincing case.

Now, four years after Thomas was confirmed, the "Supreme Court/Three Stooges" poll was taken. What percentage of Americans do you suppose could name Clarence Thomas as a justice of the United States Supreme Court? Only 30% could. Bear in mind that the "mainstream media" regularly reports on Supreme Court decisions, often including discussions of which justices voted to uphold or to overturn lower-court rulings. Was Thomas a victim of the "propaganda model," or do people simply tend to forget "yesterday's news" over time?

In a similar vein, the current Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, was confirmed in September 2005. What is particularly noteworthy is that Roberts was originally nominated by Bush the Younger to fill the seat of retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but after the sudden death of then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Bush withdrew Roberts' nomination and renominated him to become the next Chief Justice.

This was a major news story at the time, but just three months later, only 16% of Americans could name Roberts as a Supreme Court justice.

Source of poll numbers.

 

[The Big Dog]

Good spot on Zola. It is unfortunate that there are anti semites and neo nazis in my movement. I am certain that there are also such in yours. This is completely irrelevant to any sort of argument here. You, and the rest if your movement, need to learn focus.

I could read the headline. However, I am sure you find that not one in 1000 people could recognize the photograph. History is like that. Even as recent as 6 years ago.

As far as being certain about neo nazis and anti-semites in "my movement," I am astonished by that comment. Again, you are truly deluding yourself.

 

[mjd1982]

Frankly, mjd, your contention that everyone should remember all the details of a highly newsworthy event years after it occurred is laughable, and simply serves to demonstrate your desperation to proclaim the likelihood of a US government conspiracy. Here are two examples that thoroughly disprove your contention:

From time to time, over the last 12 years, polls have been taken asking a sample of Americans to name as many justices of the United States Supreme Court as they can. The results have been fairly dismal; in the first poll taken, more people were able to name the original Three Stooges^WP than were able to name three or more (out of nine) Supreme Court justices.

Two results are particularly on point here. First is the case of Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1991, George Bush the Elder nominated Clarence Thomas to fill the seat of retiring justice Thurgood Marshall. Thomas's nomination was controversial to begin with; many considered him unqualified, and felt that Bush had merely selected Thomas because he is black and conservative (Marshall was black and liberal). Toward the end of Thomas's confirmation hearings, however, a former subordinate, Anita Hill, came forward with sensational charges that Thomas had sexually harassed her. Thomas categorically denied the allegations, and both of them (along with supporting witnesses) testifed before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Hill's testimony was extremely graphic, including much crude language which she attributed to Thomas. The hearings were broadcast live on national television, and network news programs repeated the highlights. The controversy was a huge news story; everyone was talking about it. Eventually Thomas was narrowly confirmed by the United States Senate, as Hill and her supporters had failed to make a sufficiently convincing case.

Now, four years after Thomas was confirmed, the "Supreme Court/Three Stooges" poll was taken. What percentage of Americans do you suppose could name Clarence Thomas as a justice of the United States Supreme Court? Only 30% could. Bear in mind that the "mainstream media" regularly reports on Supreme Court decisions, often including discussions of which justices voted to uphold or to overturn lower-court rulings. Was Thomas a victim of the "propaganda model," or do people simply tend to forget "yesterday's news" over time?

In a similar vein, the current Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, was confirmed in September 2005. What is particularly noteworthy is that Roberts was originally nominated by Bush the Younger to fill the seat of retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but after the sudden death of then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Bush withdrew Roberts' nomination and renominated him to become the next Chief Justice.

This was a major news story at the time, but just three months later, only 16% of Americans could name Roberts as a Supreme Court justice.

Source of poll numbers.

Is there some pathological problem tht you d'uh's have that prevents you from swallowing anyting that's remotely unpalatable to you? Is there a critical mass of repetitions that you need to be bombarded with before you are able to understand? You must have been pretty terrible at school, my days...

The point about the newsworthiness of a fact can be gauge very simply. Tell people of the existence of a fact, and see if they are surprised that they are nto aware of it. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, no one will be surprised that they dont know the names. In the case of wtc7, everyone will be. I know I was when I found out, and I'm sure you were too. We all were. This is indicative of censorship. End of story.

Another reminder that you should attack the argument, NOT THE ARGUER!

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Miss Anthrope

 

[Pardalis]

Nope.

 

[twinstead]

I know I was when I found out, and I'm sure you were too. We all were. This is indicative of censorship. End of story.

So you get to pick which news items should be remembered and which should not, which news items are suspicious when they are remembered and which news items aren't, and declare censorship when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.

Roger.

 

[mjd1982]

So you get to pick which news items should be remembered and which should not, which news items are suspicious when they are remembered and which news items aren't, and declare censorship when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.

Roger.

Oh for (rule 8) sake!!!

I will start off by saying that this is too important a issue to be idiotic. Think! Reflect! Use your brain!

I have nowhere said that I decide these things, I have explicitly said it is the people who decide on the newsworthiness of this or not. If they regard it as suspicious/surprising, then that is a good barometer of such. Nothing else.

Think!

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh for (rule 8) sake!!!

I will start off by saying that this is too important a issue to be idiotic. Think! Reflect! Use your brain!

I have nowhere said that I decide these things, I have explicitly said it is the people who decide on the newsworthiness of this or not. If they regard it as suspicious/surprising, then that is a good barometer of such. Nothing else.

Think!

I am sorry, but finding someone who is so uninformed of WTC7 and then having that person blame "mass media" for his ignorance is not a good barometer of censorship, champ. The information is freely available, widely available (and is being grossly distorted by your anti-semetic friends in the CT movement, among others, but that is a thread for another time).

By the way, your "THINK" nonsense is as annoying as it is immature.

 

[twinstead]

Oh for (rule 8) sake!!!

I will start off by saying that this is too important a issue to be idiotic. Think! Reflect! Use your brain!

I have nowhere said that I decide these things, I have explicitly said it is the people who decide on the newsworthiness of this or not. If they regard it as suspicious/surprising, then that is a good barometer of such. Nothing else.

Think!

Just because ANYBODY regards ANYTHING as suspicious doesn't mean it is really suspicious. That includes YOU, or this 'they' you talk about.

What you don't seem to get is you are arguing from your own bias while accusing us of the same, and then being arrogant about it. Every subject you have ever posted about all came down to the way you personally interpreted something.

That's all well and good until you come across somebody just as smart as you who interprets the same thing, having every bit the same or even more information about it as you, totally different. In this forum there are dozens of them.

Oh, then God help him because now you get all arrogant and condescending, calling him names, shill, sheep, herd, calling him stupid. "How DARE ANYBODY HOLD A CONTRARY OPINION TO ME!?", you scream.

LOL

It's childish. And frankly idiotic. And this issue is too important to be childish OR idiotic, right?

 

[Myriad]

One aspect of your propaganda/censorship theory that hasn't been discussed here yet is evidence that extensive censorship can be carried out in secret.

I'm assuming that this censorship is carried out in secret, as otherwise you would be able to present evidence of it, such as documents describing the program, printed guidelines on what is to be censored, memos giving instructions to censors for particular cases, court cases challenging the censorship, and so forth. If you cannot present such evidence, then either you're not willing to support your own theory (in which case it's of no further interest), or the evidence is not available because the program is secret.

Historically, large-scale censorship is common enough, but are there any examples where the existence of the censorship program was itself secret? Censorship requires the cooperation of large numbers of people, starting with the people whose communications are being censored. Unless there is a general shutdown of all communication (which has clearly not happened in the U.S.), a few censors can control the communications of large numbers of people only if most of them are cooperating.

The cooperation does not have to be willing. If appeals to patriotism aren't effective, threats will also do. But to be effective such appeals and threats must reach the entire literate population. This means it's not possible to keep the appeals and threats themselves secret. For them to be effective they must be proclaimed loudly and repeatedly.

But let's suppose someone wanted to set up an unprecedented secret censorship program in the U.S., in which some number of secret participants must enforce limits on what everyone else publishes, without that interference being detected.

Not being in on the secret, a reporter for a normal city newspaper in the U.S. decides to do a story on WTC7. He researches, does some interviews, writes the story, sends out a photographer for present-day photos of the site, and then... what happens? At what point in the process does the secret censorship intervene?

Does the reporter's editor stop the story? That scenario would require every national news editor at every city newspaper and local TV news staff be in on the censorship program. Thousands of people who have chosen to make disseminating news their life's work have to be secretly enlisted, convinced, communicated with, and corrected when they err, without creating any paper trail in the process. That itself would take hundreds of people, who themselves must remain loyal, and so forth. This is impossible.

But perhaps, instead, only certain people "at the top" are in the know. After all, a small number of coroporate moguls own a large fraction of the mass media outlets. So, it's not the reporter's editor who kills the story, it's some top Viacom executive (who is mysteriously omniscient about everything his tens of thousands of employees are doing) who intervenes instead. But how? If he passes the word down the chain of command, then everyone in the chain of command will wonder what's going on, and we're back to the previous case. If he acts more directly, then the reporter goes to his colleagues and his boss and says, "Hey, a top Viacom executive killed my story about WTC7; what gives?"

So, the colleagues and editor start investigating what now appears to be an even bigger story. Until the exec contacts them and tells them to stop or they'll be fired, oh and by the way, don't tell anyone else either.

So the reporters and editor tell their freelance buddies, "Off the record, the Viacom execs killed our WTC7 story and told us we'e be fired if we tell anyone about it. There has to be a bigger story here. Why don't you look into it? Remember, you didn't hear it from me."

And the freelance writers start working on their stories, only to find that no U.S. magazine will buy them (due to more interference from top execs). So they go to their friends in the foreign press and say, "every media outlet in the U.S. is censoring stories about WTC7. There must be a really really big story here. Why don't you look into it? Here's all the material we've collected so far, plus a timeline of how each story was killed before publication." The big story isn't even the WTC7 anymore, it's the censorship program itself, which isn't going to remain secret very long.

It just doesn't work. No matter where in the chain of command the knowing censorship participants are located, at some point they must step on the toes of those who are not in on the secret in order to carry out their agenda. And in today's media environment, there is no way to stop those whose toes are stepped on from hollering about it.

Secret censorship of information that a large percentage of the population is already aware of is not plausible.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[mjd1982]

I am sorry, but finding someone who is so uninformed of WTC7 and then having that person blame "mass media" for his ignorance is not a good barometer of censorship, champ. The information is freely available, widely available (and is being grossly distorted by your anti-semetic friends in the CT movement, among others, but that is a thread for another time).

By the way, your "THINK" nonsense is as annoying as it is immature.

It is freely and widely available, but not in the MSM, which is the point.

 

[mjd1982]

One aspect of your propaganda/censorship theory that hasn't been discussed here yet is evidence that extensive censorship can be carried out in secret.

I'm assuming that this censorship is carried out in secret, as otherwise you would be able to present evidence of it, such as documents describing the program, printed guidelines on what is to be censored, memos giving instructions to censors for particular cases, court cases challenging the censorship, and so forth. If you cannot present such evidence, then either you're not willing to support your own theory (in which case it's of no further interest), or the evidence is not available because the program is secret.

Historically, large-scale censorship is common enough, but are there any examples where the existence of the censorship program was itself secret? Censorship requires the cooperation of large numbers of people, starting with the people whose communications are being censored. Unless there is a general shutdown of all communication (which has clearly not happened in the U.S.), a few censors can control the communications of large numbers of people only if most of them are cooperating.

The cooperation does not have to be willing. If appeals to patriotism aren't effective, threats will also do. But to be effective such appeals and threats must reach the entire literate population. This means it's not possible to keep the appeals and threats themselves secret. For them to be effective they must be proclaimed loudly and repeatedly.

But let's suppose someone wanted to set up an unprecedented secret censorship program in the U.S., in which some number of secret participants must enforce limits on what everyone else publishes, without that interference being detected.

Not being in on the secret, a reporter for a normal city newspaper in the U.S. decides to do a story on WTC7. He researches, does some interviews, writes the story, sends out a photographer for present-day photos of the site, and then... what happens? At what point in the process does the secret censorship intervene?

Does the reporter's editor stop the story? That scenario would require every national news editor at every city newspaper and local TV news staff be in on the censorship program. Thousands of people who have chosen to make disseminating news their life's work have to be secretly enlisted, convinced, communicated with, and corrected when they err, without creating any paper trail in the process. That itself would take hundreds of people, who themselves must remain loyal, and so forth. This is impossible.

But perhaps, instead, only certain people "at the top" are in the know. After all, a small number of coroporate moguls own a large fraction of the mass media outlets. So, it's not the reporter's editor who kills the story, it's some top Viacom executive (who is mysteriously omniscient about everything his tens of thousands of employees are doing) who intervenes instead. But how? If he passes the word down the chain of command, then everyone in the chain of command will wonder what's going on, and we're back to the previous case. If he acts more directly, then the reporter goes to his colleagues and his boss and says, "Hey, a top Viacom executive killed my story about WTC7; what gives?"

So, the colleagues and editor start investigating what now appears to be an even bigger story. Until the exec contacts them and tells them to stop or they'll be fired, oh and by the way, don't tell anyone else either.

So the reporters and editor tell their freelance buddies, "Off the record, the Viacom execs killed our WTC7 story and told us we'e be fired if we tell anyone about it. There has to be a bigger story here. Why don't you look into it? Remember, you didn't hear it from me."

And the freelance writers start working on their stories, only to find that no U.S. magazine will buy them (due to more interference from top execs). So they go to their friends in the foreign press and say, "every media outlet in the U.S. is censoring stories about WTC7. There must be a really really big story here. Why don't you look into it? Here's all the material we've collected so far, plus a timeline of how each story was killed before publication." The big story isn't even the WTC7 anymore, it's the censorship program itself, which isn't going to remain secret very long.

It just doesn't work. No matter where in the chain of command the knowing censorship participants are located, at some point they must step on the toes of those who are not in on the secret in order to carry out their agenda. And in today's media environment, there is no way to stop those whose toes are stepped on from hollering about it.

Secret censorship of information that a large percentage of the population is already aware of is not plausible.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Sorry, I do appreciate the length of the post, but the first line misses the entire point of democratic propaganda systems. It functions through a filtering system, one of the essential features of which, is that the sort of people who will get to high level positions in corporate media are precisely those people who are disinclined to attack, in any serious way, powerul interests. You should see the Chomsky-Marr interview which I have referenced many times for more on this- he is utterly unaware of basic facts which are detrimental to his paymasters- the UK gov. This is why he is where he is.

So in the instance of 7, you will have a twofold phenomenon- the source of the information being smothered (no cameras on the scene, no press reports, no mention of it from official sources etc), followed by the disinclination of the tools of the system (MSM journalists) to report it. This will not be perfect, but it will function pretty astonishingly, with the result being the utter ignorance of the most rudmentary fact of the most reported on event of all time.

Of course, this is a pattern that can be shown to function in countless different instances- the collapse of 7/911 in general is just a very good one

 

[Jonnyclueless]

If that was true it would have been a good point.

 

[Elizabeth I]

The point is that such facts will not be deemed "news", i.e. facts tht are widely recognised and accepted.

What? By definition, "news" is something that is NOT widely known and accepted.

Do you remember the old cliché defining "news"? "Dog bites man" is not news; "Man bites dog" is.

Why would anyone, mainstream media, internet wackos, or otherwise, waste their time reporting something that everybody already recognizes and accepts?

"And in today's news, the sun rose in the east. A lot of rain has made everyone's grass grow higher. Oh, and this just in...the Pope is Catholic. For more on that story, we go to our correspondent in Vatican City."

 

[Myriad]

Sorry, I do appreciate the length of the post, but the first line misses the entire point of democratic propaganda systems. It functions through a filtering system, one of the essential features of which, is that the sort of people who will get to high level positions in corporate media are precisely those people who are disinclined to attack, in any serious way, powerul interests. You should see the Chomsky-Marr interview which I have referenced many times for more on this- he is utterly unaware of basic facts which are detrimental to his paymasters- the UK gov. This is why he is where he is.

Tell you what: I'll accept this proposition at face value, for the sake of argument. I'm not convinced it's true, but I have no experience with the high levels of the corporate media world that would provide me any evidence to the contrary either. So, let's proceed on that basis.

So in the instance of 7, you will have a twofold phenomenon- the source of the information being smothered (no cameras on the scene, no press reports, no mention of it from official sources etc),...

No, this is not a convincing point to me. There were plenty of press reports, consistent with the relative unimportance of an event that caused no injury or death compared with previous events that day that had killed thousands. The lack of photographers in close proximity is adequately explained by the firefighters' understandable desire to search for their brothers who they believed might still be alive under the rubble, as unimpeded as possible.

...followed by the disinclination of the tools of the system (MSM journalists) to report it.

Here, you've lost me. Earlier you were talking about "high level positions in corporate media." Now you're talking about MSM news journalists. These are not "high level positions" by any stretch of the imagination, especially the ones who work on updates and retrospectives of minor aspects of old stories, which is what any MSM story about WTC7 in the past five years is.

So, I was willing to grant for the sake of argument that people in "high level positions" have the qualities you ascribe to them. But that doesn't extend to the journalists. Them, I do have personal experience with, and I've seen no evidence that they've been "filtered" for anything other than willingness to work hard for low starting wages, ability to work to professional standards under time pressure, and ability to consume vast amounts of coffee while hardly ever needing to pee.

So, what I said before still applies: if the "top level" people are trying to suppress stories, that must bring them into conflict with the journalists at some level, and that conflict would itself become a news story.

This will not be perfect, but it will function pretty astonishingly, with the result being the utter ignorance of the most rudmentary fact of the most reported on event of all time.

There's certainly a lot of ignorance out there, but the causes are simpler than any organized conspiracy or filtering process.

State and local government spend billions every year to teach U.S. high school students logarithms. Every high school graduate has studied logarithms and was required to pass tests on them.

So, go ask some average Americans who have high school diplomas what the base 10 log of 1000 is. How many correct answers do you think you would receive? Do you know the answer, without looking anything up? (You can ignore the last question if you're not a high school graduate.)

Is this evident ignorance the result of a democratic propaganda system?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Pardalis]

I have nowhere said that I decide these things, I have explicitly said it is the people who decide on the newsworthiness of this or not.

Nope.

If they regard it as suspicious/surprising, then that is a good barometer of such. Nothing else.

Nope.

This will not be perfect, but it will function pretty astonishingly, with the result being the utter ignorance of the most rudmentary fact of the most reported on event of all time.

Do you know what Buzz Aldrin said when he set foot on the moon for the first time?

Of course, this is a pattern that can be shown to function in countless different instances- the collapse of 7/911 in general is just a very good one

Nope. It's only important for CTists.

 

[stilicho]

You havent understood the point. The collapse of the building was reported initially- i.e. in the 1st few hours or so. This was unavoidable, and there was no reason not to report it. As soon as the evident suspicion about it appeared, it disappeared.

This should have been simple to understand.

Initial reports on various events continually include some details that are omitted later. Consider the story about the Minnesota bridge collapse. Like this one:

Well, a reporter just said a witness saw something puffing out and up before the collapse, then a local anchor used the word "explosions".

How Conspiracies are born...

Eyewitness: "I was driving on the bridge, when clouds of dust began to rise, and the the bridge collapsed"

Talking Head, (Shepard Smith) on FOX: "Well, the quesion is, what caused the EXPLOSIONS?"

Explained here: http://minx.cc/?post=235608

And another quote from the same place:

I heard some initial reports indicating a number of concrete delivery trucks on the bridge - don't remember the number quoted, but it sounds like they would have been on one side of the bridge from the resurfacing lane closure, with two lanes closed and two open to traffic. Can anyone comment on the potential effect of an asymmetric load near maximum capacity?

Why were these initial impressions "censored" in later reports? The death toll, too, was steadily revised downward from the neighbourhood of 40 or 50 to about a dozen. Why the "censorship"? What really happened to the other 30 or 40 "missing" people?

I don't think the OP actually understands what censorship or propaganda really is. I would recommend a visit to any good library to find political science essays on freedom of the press in communist Russia. There have been scores of them written and the contrast between that and simple editorial revision is noteworthy.

 

[stilicho]

Sorry, I do appreciate the length of the post, but the first line misses the entire point of democratic propaganda systems. It functions through a filtering system, one of the essential features of which, is that the sort of people who will get to high level positions in corporate media are precisely those people who are disinclined to attack, in any serious way, powerul interests. You should see the Chomsky-Marr interview which I have referenced many times for more on this- he is utterly unaware of basic facts which are detrimental to his paymasters- the UK gov. This is why he is where he is.

A filtering system? Do you mean simple editorial discretion or do you mean deliberate hiding of information in the public's interest?

You are wrong on so many counts about this. Probably the best example is Exhibit "A", the case of Conrad Black. He is a paid-up "Bilderberger" and a newsman at that. His erudition in the case of FDR is widely recognised as the most professional historical biography ever written by an amateur in the field.

But now he is fighting for his economic life and his physical freedom. His story is well documented in the MSM and, if anything, conspicuously ignored by conspiracists. Why? Because his downfall and widely-acknowledged corruption (and outright stealing) confounds every piece of "evidence" that conspiracists have about how the world works.

Of course, this is a pattern that can be shown to function in countless different instances- the collapse of 7/911 in general is just a very good one

By "very good" example, of course, you mean a "very bad" example. The story about the collapse of WTC 7 was carried in the MSM. If it hadn't been, you wouldn't even know about it. It wasn't brought to you by Gerard Holmgren, Dylan Avery, or Michael C Ruppert. It was brought to you by the major media outlets.

And how do you think the conspiracists "discovered" that the SEC had offices in WTC7?

(By the way, the whole conspiracists point about the "demolition" of WTC7 hinges upon the destruction of vital documents held there that were deliberately destroyed to stop the investigations into Enron and Global Crossing, largely. But the investigations were not stopped. Do the conspiracists accept this and provide another reason? No! Why are they censoring the truth?)

 

[mjd1982]

What? By definition, "news" is something that is NOT widely known and accepted.

Do you remember the old cliché defining "news"? "Dog bites man" is not news; "Man bites dog" is.

Why would anyone, mainstream media, internet wackos, or otherwise, waste their time reporting something that everybody already recognizes and accepts?

"And in today's news, the sun rose in the east. A lot of rain has made everyone's grass grow higher. Oh, and this just in...the Pope is Catholic. For more on that story, we go to our correspondent in Vatican City."

Excuse me. The point was facts that get widely accepted, i.e. propagated (whence propaganda)