Not sure which parts of the mainstream media you're referring to but certainly not traditional (legacy?) print media like NYT/WaPo.
Maybe just maybe it's not interesting to big outlets because influencers like Paul have less influence overall than is apparent to the subcultures who follow them.
NYT on Paul [1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/technology/crypto-influen...
What someone other than these media groups may do is make a “bold claim” that may be true but not demonstrably so. Something like that may shy a big company away from casting the first stone and instead to report on someone else’s claim as an allegation.
I think the objection is to the image of major media outlets living in fear of the Paul brothers. They regularly publish negative stories on people with much better lawyers, more influence, and scarier extralegal muscle.
When an organization has already taken on considerable risk on multiple fronts, they become much more conservative. I'd wager it's not fear of the Paul Brothers, it's a limited appetite for risk. Also, mitigating risk since it takes time to investigate a signal and turn it into a story; which the NYTimes seemed content to offload onto Coffee.
I also worked at The New Yorker. They have their own legal counsel and are not risk adverse in the least.
0: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/style/ravelry-knitting-ba...
It's completely possible to live outside the crypto bubble- thank god.