I think there are some factors more general to the state of music journalism rather than just specific to deep tech - see also the total media non-interest in jackin for example.
Essentially, genre exposes are hard work. They require interviewing people, on the scene reporting from clubs, and a bit of linked up thinking to place new scenes in a context. In the 90s and early 00s there was Simon Reynolds with all those fantastic Wire articles willing and able to do all of that. But actually thinking about it, if he wasn't there, that would have been a fairly major chunk of the writing about those scenes gone (although obviously DnB and garage did get plenty of write-ups elsewhere. There's partly just a personelle thing in that the 00s heirs to Reynolds in terms of clever writing on UK music - notably Blackdown, Kpunk, Adam Harper - simply haven't been feeling the new house stuff of the past few years.
I also think that that whole mold of 'I have seen the future' type writing, or even 'there's this new thing happening' (as least when it comes to mostly-non-internetty scenes) had wained a whole lot in recent years.
I think the fact that deep tech is 'just house', has an insanely boring name (for what is a very interesting music), and even worse compaired to jackin, which at least had the good sense to steal a name from a music which had been more or less dead for 25 years, has stollen its name from deep house and tech house, which are still very very much alive - I think that contributes a lot to people not cottoning on to what's happening. Not an excuse those, cause even without some major sonic innovation like 2-step or whatever, it doesn't mean you can't write intelligently about changes within house, sociological things, placing this stuff in a tradition, that loops back to bleep and bass and acid etc etc.
For my own little part, after months of very slow progress and other life getting in the way, I'm making some real headway on this deep tech think piece. Expect movements within the next few weeks.
