Many are dismayed by the attention this case gets. I want to try to explain/defend this.
The case has some qualities many other cases don't
A) locality/closeness
B) uncomplicated story *
C) a very clear-cut bad guy/act much by virtue of power/position
Should he/his act be condemned? SURE!! Nobody, pretty much, would disagree with this. The importance of condemnation and the big attention is that people stop engaging in (hopefully) taboo activities like this ever again. There are lots of US/European hunters which needs to change behaviour. It's not just this lion and this man, but this case alone is bad enough that people like Schwarzenegger et al. justifiably reacts.
When there's this whole story with pictures and the extra layers of "evilness", sure there will be more outrage, but even if all of those details were missing and no outrage ensued, doesn't make it wrong to react when all factors converge in that once per ten thousand cases, or what-have-you.
Does this case take away attention better spent on other cases? Well sure; time spent is equal to time wasted on all other things. But that argument should be put up against all other potential news/media stories, and tallying up the scores of what's worth the time isn't a one-dimensional scoresheet, like in sports...
That being said, I think you should know about this news (unrelated):
‘Sea Slaves’: The Human Misery That Feeds Pets and Livestock* News stories of wars/conflicts/politics etc. are usually complicated and depressing. In a way this story isn't becasue public opinion may be effective and it's on a relevant scale people can relate to.