My point was that, I think, that there has been NO reference to the plagiarism in the Guardian but only references to it by a media specialist in a blog on the paper's website. But whatever.
Sorry, I appear to have mis-understood the question. I thought you were complaining that there was just one article in the paper, rather than asking whether or not it had appeared in the print version.
My understanding is that The Guardian is the UK's main newspaper for covering media/broadcasting stories, with the other papers generally showing next to no interest, unless there is a celebrity angle. The Guardian does a lot of their reporting as online only these days, especially the media stuff, because people interested in the media tend to be digitally orientated. There used to be a specific 'Media supplement', but since the recession, it's part of the main paper (it had a lot of jobs in it), but I think it's still published on Mondays, so that's where you are most likely to find a print version of the story, perhaps with a bit more detail, if it is to be printed.
IMO, this is a media story, so it is right to be covered by a media specialist, rather than other sports writers. There will be plenty of time for more comprehensive articles once The Times have completed their investigation.
The tennis writing community is small, so it's very difficult for them to maintain the impartiality required, and could become vulnerable to criticism themselves. If they are harsh, they could be seen to be promoting their own self-interest. If they are kind, they could be seen as defending one of their own.
I'll admit, one of my pet hates is premature reporting, regardless of the topic. Whether it's those documentaries on tragedies that appear on tv within a week, claiming to explain 'what really happened', or the sensational reporting of celebrity deaths, like Peaches Geldolf recently, where there was incredible demand and provision of speculation dressed up as news stories, that didn't actually know what had happened, because the post-mortem hadn't been complete, never mind the toxicology testing, or a coroner's report etc. Clearly, that's much more distasteful, but premature reporting of more mundane stories is equally pointless.
Regarding the general subject of redundancies of sports writers, I wonder if some of them will continue to work for them as free-lancers, and if new people are all on zero-hours contracts?