One plausible reason: the story is a "slow burn" story that hasn't had time to gain traction. Mainstream news acts more like an aggregator of information that percolates out of various niche segments' echo chambers: give it time.
Another thing to consider: what is particularly newsworthy about it to the general public? Software technology focused people would find this very news worthy. I have little sympathy for a business of any size that uses github as its primary repository: the most-current source should be maintained on an internal server, in my opinion, and companies that require github to be fully available to operate are doing it wrong. I mean one of the primary advantages of a distributed repo is that there is a complete history for every node that has synced with the most recent commit. There shouldn't be a strong dependence on a central repo.
> There shouldn't be a strong dependence on a central repo.
Most groups are not setup like the Linux kernel where there is a "gatekeeper" who is a person that directly pulls from other people's repos (or from commits sent to an email list).
A central repository becomes "the truth" and once something is "the truth" it becomes the person that wants to push their code to this repo to do the merging. There is nothing about this that is inherent to Github in particular, but telling everyone to change their "origin" remote to point somewhere else can be an issue depending on how large your group is. And what if someone manages to get a push to (e.g.) master through the Github DDoS before everyone is on the new remote repo? Now Github and BackupRemote have branched, when you really want BackupRemote to be a superset of the copy on Github.
Another thing to consider: what is particularly newsworthy about it to the general public? Software technology focused people would find this very news worthy. I have little sympathy for a business of any size that uses github as its primary repository: the most-current source should be maintained on an internal server, in my opinion, and companies that require github to be fully available to operate are doing it wrong. I mean one of the primary advantages of a distributed repo is that there is a complete history for every node that has synced with the most recent commit. There shouldn't be a strong dependence on a central repo.