[indubitable]

That is an interesting observation that does seem true. However, I also think there's a very benign explanation for it. Something we forget is that news agencies are not benevolent. The themes a news organization publishes are not going to be based upon what is most valuable to society, but what is most valuable to them.

Right now all traditional media (mostly as opposed to social media) is seriously struggling. Traditional media has been experiencing constant downsizing/layoffs and other consequences. And this includes big names like the New York Times. Cable news networks are likely only continuing along since they're owned by huge, profitable, corporations that can subsidize their operation in exchange for the valuable ability to use them to push agenda.

So what I'm getting at here is that if public reception and 'excitement' towards anti-fracking started to decline, news agencies would begin to cover it less and move to more exciting things that bring in the clicks which bring in the revenue. Blaming Silicon Valley is something that will likely continue to bring in hits since we live in this really paradoxical economy. By most of all measures, our economy is doing terrifically - yet simultaneously we're seeing things like real wages remaining stagnant for decades. So people want things to blame. And Silicon Valley is an easy target as it's seen as a realm of excess and increasingly societal apathy on part of the big players. This [1] single [phenomenally well framed] image is likely an embodiment of how many see the increasing divide. Makes for good clicks in any case!

[1] - https://i.imgur.com/hCK2OiS.jpg