Did they really miss, though? They didn't provide a complete accurate story, but that was never their goal. They were trying to push a narrative to their viewer base that reinforces stereotypes those viewers already had, and in that task, they've succeeded. The only way they'd have "missed" here is if they were forced - as part of the same story - to admit they were wrong and backpedal, so people watching that specific report saw it. Even if they later issued a correction, the damage has already been done at that point and nobody really cares.
Almost nobody who watches Fox News and believes their narrative is going to read this Salon article and even if they do, they'll likely just dismiss it as leftist propaganda or whatever. Almost nobody who is interested in this perspective would have seen the original story.
So while it's certainly interesting to read about the topic, trying to imply that Fox has egg on their collective face because of the inaccuracy of their reporting is simply misrepresenting the situation. They don't care, and neither do their viewers.
They even nearly acknowledged this in a roundabout way in the last paragraph of the article:
None of this happened because Fox News decided to help. It happened because millions of people, including plenty who have never watched a minute of Fox in their lives, decided the games were worth watching on their own terms.