If people are unaware of this is because they aren't making the effort. I've known of and followed the story for years.

I also (though, probably for different reasons) have adamantly contended that the media is inept. However, I contend that it is because the public either prefers or accepts it that way. Trust me if people wanted more content in their life the market would respond.

You (typically) quite a biased source. Turning to wikipedia (not the most objective source) one finds a more dispassionate analysis -

1. Private banks engaged in absurd practices while protected from the consequences of their actions by government guarantees.

Find one libertarian in the room who supports this practice anywhere.

2. There was a time that the folks of Iceland were content with the satus quo. They sat back and allowed their protected banks to offer return on investments that were 10% higher than other nations.

3. When the markets collapsed the banks couldn't pay and turned to their guarantor, the government.

4. The people complained.

Well the voters picked the folks in office, allowed the programs to go forth and until the collapse thought they were hot stuff.

They screwed up. Sorta like Americans allowing federal bank insurance and FHA loans to unqualified borrowers.

People have authority. They simply don't wish to be held accountable when their choices don't work out well.