It is not the case. The fact that people tend to forget news nowadays is because there are so many of them. And there are so many of them, because more people are able to break stories like that.
The situation above is a major fuck up of the local authorities. A lot of journalists out there would make a career if they break a story like that and ride the hype wave for the next year or two. So if you want to make something public it is much more difficult to stop you nowadays rather then to publish anything.
How many people had heard of Erin Brockovich before there was a movie made about it? Not zero, but nowhere near as many as after the movie.
A huge proportion of society (who are eligible to vote) don't hear about these things even after a journalist has fought tooth and nail to release the story.
People, for many varied and complex reasons, tend not to care about this sort of stuff unless it gets glamorized.
See Edward Snowden for one example. Lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth, promises made and serious discussion of the problem, but is the situation now any better?
I have a feeling that the modern method to deal with PR nightmares is to acknowledge the problem, promise to fix it, and then just let the hype die before doubling down on the nefarious behavior, but with better op-sec.
If it's not obvious, I'm getting (even more) jaded about the whole issue.
The Flint water crisis took years to resolve. Authorities and businesses poison people all the time, but usually those people are poor and irrelevant enough that news coverage makes no impact at all.
The situation above is a major fuck up of the local authorities. A lot of journalists out there would make a career if they break a story like that and ride the hype wave for the next year or two. So if you want to make something public it is much more difficult to stop you nowadays rather then to publish anything.