Did you happen to look into some of these stories for yourself?

I'm not suggesting that anyone's validated by virtue of not being ignored.

What I am arguing is that every media outlet has finite resources to invest in programming, investigations, news, entertainment, etc.

Censorship by omission is the cheapest and easiest method of information supression to keep the public ignorant. This applies to wars, govt corruption, corporate corruption, legal corruption, etc. Ignore it. Don't report it.

Ensure that the public remains ignorant of it, so it goes away, etc.

Any media outlet that decides to invest in disproving a story/idea/theory is investing time and resources in a counternarrative, which could be invested/spent elsewhere.
So, this type of counternarrative has a cost associated with it. It doesn't happen for free.

There had to be a reason/motivation for investing media resources in a counternarrative, which includes some anticipated return on that investment (typically an apathetic public).

This applies generally.

Have you ever wondered why events that you are certain the public would be interested in are universally ignored by the media? This explanation sums it up.

These debunked stories often deserve special attention.