Rema711, let me explain to you what a blood libel was/is:
They mostly took place in Europe, although there were some in other areas. Christian residents wanted a reason to kill Jews. They would kill a Christian child (or take one who had died), and claim the Jews had killed it. They claimed it was done so the Jews could use the blood to make matzos with. This resulted in a mob which would usually go to the Jewish areas of the town/city, and begin butchering the Jews who lived there.
Obviously, Jews don’t use blood to make matzos, and they didn’t kill the child. So the entire story was fabricated. If you look up the definition of the word “libel”, you’ll see something like this:
“a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation”
To say that constantly reporting on abuse in the Jewish community is a blood libel is not true. It may be biased reporting. It may be antisemitism (although I don’t believe it is). But it’s definitely not a libel.
If anything, the libel in the abuse cases is when many Jewish communities blame the victims, and claim they’re making up stories to get someone in trouble! That would be a libel. In fact, I believe that’s the reason it gets reported on so much. It’s not as much the abuse itself as the attempts to cover it up. They hold rallies to raise funds for the abuser. The victims are ostracized. That’s why so much is written about it. When there are cases where everyone cooperates, almost nothing is written about it.