I remember when there was a lot of attention being given to Amanda Knox here on LW. Someone asked a similar question as you...something along the lines of "Why aren't more people up in arms about this?"
The answer for me at that time was that I have a certain number of Attention Dollars to spend. People are wrongfully imprisoned all over the world every day. New video cards are too expensive. Kids are being tortured. McDonald's stopped serving salads during the pandemic. There's all sorts of things to spend my AD's on.
Attention to causes and injustices costs AD and there is a high transaction cost to switching which injustices are important to me. I hypothesize that the complex system that is the-attention-of-public-discourse suffers from the same. There's only so much capacity for giving attention to different causes, and switching those causes carries a high price.
That's not to say Cause X is wrong or less important, only that I (and, hypothetically, public discourse) can only focus on a limited number of things, there's costs to switching attention, and other things beat Cause X in the race to capture attention.
Different things probably come to the forefront through quirks of zeitgeist, personal relevance, effective messaging, attentional resources available at the time, and a dozen other subtle and not-so-subtle factors.
Of course, this doesn't really answer your question (and here I am submitting it as an answer)! It only pushes the "why's" to another level. Why can public discourse only focus on a limited number of things? Why, exactly, is it currently focusing on the things it is? Why are the transaction costs to switching attention high? I suspect that the answers are very complicated and unknown.
There is an economy of public attention. The amount of noise is high, and information asymmetries abound. If you think Cause X is not getting the amount of attention it should then you should work on lowering the information asymmetries and noise level...and recognize that if Cause X gets more attention it'll mean Cause Y that everyone is currently paying attention to will get less attention. (At least if my model holds.)
Also, you say "...suggests that a lot of abuse of power is going on." I think that this conclusion depends a lot on your priors. One type of person is going to see a bad seed when they see this story, another type of person is going to see a corrupt institution. This feeds into this hypothetical economy of public attention.