I don't quite get what your second sentence is trying to insinuate. Is it:

- The media is lying to you: there actually is no lawsuit?

- For the last 12 years, the media and Google colluded to discriminate against anyone above 30 years of age to drive clicks with the inevitable lawsuit, and their payday has finally come?

- 300 people suing the most prominent internet company for employment discrimination isn't important enough to warrant news coverage?

In case you want to chose option (3), you'll need a cut-off for what's newsworthy. I propose scanning the headlines of important newspapers for the most boring article you can find. Boring articles don't generate many clicks, so that article must have been included "on the merits", and presents an upper bound for the required "newsworthiness".

Doing this exercise on the WSJ right now yields "New GE Chief Delays Part of Boston HQ".

More or less newsworthy than this lawsuit, or Uber's bromance with bankruptcy? You decide!

I think it's option 4: The media may have just found its next horse to beat, and will continue to do so for as long as people keep clicking on new stories about it, no matter how thoroughly dead and decomposed that horse may become in the meantime.

Some things should be flogged to death or they recur.

What are you referring to?

Six months (plus!) of negative articles about alleged XYZ discrimination at the company.