While the article said that this was a "cover-up" - as the original artifact is not displayed anywhere - I don't think Jacobovici is saying that this is being deliberately hidden by scholars. I certainly don't think so. After all, it is mentioned in Wikipedia and other places. What is interesting is that the amount of attention given to this find in the non-scholarly world seems to be disproportionately tiny compared to its significance.
My guess is that Jordanians are not nearly as interested in Biblical-era archaeology as Jews and Christians generally are. There is evidence that Muslim archaeologists tend to discount the importance of Jewish or Biblical-era artifacts (and vice versa.) This does not imply a deliberate cover-up..
Now, let's talk about its significance. Critics are saying that this is not proof of the Torah's authenticity. I agree, and never said it was.
However, this does not make the find any less significant. Right now there are headlines whenever an artifact is found that might bear the name of someone obscure mentioned once in the books of Chronicles or Kings. Anything found from the First Temple period or earlier is considered big news. The mainstream media certainly covered (much scantier) evidence of external evidence pointing to David or Goliath.
Here, though, is something that certainly refers to a major Torah figure, from hundreds of years prior to the era of the Prophets whose artifacts generate press today. The inscription was found in the same geographical area as the Biblical event. The chances that there are two famous prophets named "Balaam, son of Beor" in Jordan is essentially zero.
While it is hard to compare, one would think that this is roughly as important as the Mesha Stele, which also corroborated stories from the times of the Prophets.
(The Biblical story of Balaam is also interesting because it is, I believe, the only story in the Pentateuch from Exodus onward where the Israelites aren't the central characters. They have no idea of the drama happening near their tents. )
I couldn't find any contemporary references to the Deir Alla finds in 1967 newspapers.
So, yes, this seems to be bigger news than something that is relegated to university libraries. The popularity of the post shows this to be true. How you interpret it is up to you.