The problem is that the hook is has nothing to do with the subject matter. The story is about a prison strike, the hook is "this story is being suppressed," which is essentially a lie. It's not a bait and reward, it's a bait and switch. It's like putting boobs in a youtube thumbnail despite there not being so much as a single woman in your video.

The first step to an intellectual approach is to actually approach the issue, which this article doesn't.

You would start with a more accurate description of the actual press coverage received, establishing some empirical expectation and an explanation of why this expectation was not met. The author leaves it to the reader to imagine what coverage actually means. What would have constituted adequate coverage? How does this coverage compare to coverage of other major stories? Many articles will have poor and vague answers to these questions. This article doesn't even attempt them.

The next basic question to address is "why was the coverage expectation not met." The author provides only once sentence in the entire article that is even remotely related to this question ("Perhaps there was..."), and it's merely speculation that encourages the reader to imagine all sorts of nefarious possibilities. One possibility is that people just don't care that much. As I mentioned, the article was submitted to hacker news and ignored until some ridiculous bait was added to the headline.

In intellectual article would have done some sort of investigation of those questions as an absolute minimum.