Finn, I think we all agree on the concept. News can be reported by a reputable source (it wouldn't be news if it weren't), but be drowned out by sensational stories which have little real meaning for most of us (like the Jon Bonet Ramsey news of late).
The definition of "news" is not that which is published by newspapers and reported by tv journalists. "News we are not hearing" or "Important but missing news items," clearly suggests not only that all "news" is not reported, but that "important news" is being held from us.
I don't have a real problem with the notion that you meant to address important news stories that are lost in the mass of daily news reports ---much of which is merely tabloid titillation. I do think, however, that it is worth noting the irony associated with your employing (sub-consciously or otherwise) the very tactic of the tabloids that you decry - hyperbole; overstating the issue to which you wish to draw attention.
Please believe me that this is not intended as a personalized criticism of you, for you are, by no means, alone in the usage of this technique. I'm afraid, though, that it has become a commonly accepted practice (no doubt, instilled in the public by our commercial news agencies).
Consider how many times your local news broadcaster uses reprehensible news teasers to urge you to watch the nightly news program: "Deadly weather approaching parts of the metroplex - details at 11:00!" There are numerous other examples of these teasers, and they all tell us that our local news broadcasters are either PT Barnums or irresponsible bastards. If deadly weather is approaching your area, you need to know that as soon as the broadcasters do.
Unfortunately, when called upon it, the practitioners of the tactic tend to respond as you did: "Well yes you are technically right but we all know what I mean." Maybe we did and maybe we did not. As pedantic as it may seem to address this issue, I think it is far greater than an academic matter.
Language is one of our greatest accomplishments and words do matter. People, through ignorance, misuse them all of the time and that is not particularly troublesome --- hopefully we all remain in a learning mode throughout our lives. However when people who undoubtedly understand the meanings of choice words misuse them in a way that attempts to further the interest in or import of what they are saying, that is a problem.
Individuals who engage in or fall prey to this practices are not necessarily guilty of intentional misinformation or misdirection, but they are guilty of intellectual sloth.
Witness the corruption of the word "literally." How many times have you heard phrases like:
"In fact, the Reagan administration was literally
driven underground by the population."
It is even more ironic that the above statement was made by Noam Chomsky, a brilliant scholar of linguistics, in an interview by Bill Moyers.
Many people would like "begs the question" to mean that a given statement practically begs for a certain question to be asked, but this is not the proper usage of the phrase. It's a shame it isn't because the actual meaning is difficult to comprehend and is relevant almost exclusively to debating. It would be nice if the phrase meant want so many want it to, but it doesn't.
Yes, English is a living language and many of the words and phrases we use today are perfectly acceptable corruptions of much earlier forms, but that certainly doesn't mean we should encourage misuse or not attempt to maintain proper usage.
It takes many years for misuse to become proper use. In the meantime confusion is sown, and over the long term the language can lose its depth, its precision, and its subtlety.