It's the equivalent of not writing about Boeing until the day a 737 MAX crashes right in front of your newpaper offices.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/technology/cyber-hackers-... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/business/computer-flaws.h... https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/world/europe/nations-buyi... etc
NYT: Boeing is run by bean-counters and isn't taking engineering seriously anymore.
Boeing: That's not true. Our aircraft fly thousands of times a day, every day, and are very safe.
Who would find that very interesting, absent any relevant, dramatic current events?
Everyone bitches about regulation and taxes, for reasons real and imagined, but applying laws and rules to businesses before something happens is the point of them.
Isn’t it more of a problem of the population at large?
This bears repeating.
If you complain about a risk before a disaster structs, you're fearmongerng.
If you complain about a risk after disaster structs, you're flogging a dead horse.
In order to write about Boeing they'd have to have an angle and resources to go on a fishing hunt to create an interesting story for people to read and talk about.