I just did a Google search for "albedo sea ice". All the 1st page News articles were focused on the Arctic. Given that it looks like a new satellite era record low for Antarctic SIE will be set within the next few weeks, is there a good reason why so much less attention is being paid to the albedo effect in Antarctica? And the lack of attention gets even more pronounced with a Google search for "albedo effect antarctica". The first listing is a 2015 article that discusses the increase in SIE in the Antarctic
i share your general opinion and after a short back and forth discussion after i posted a similar post like yours a few months ago things got a bit more active on the global and antarctic side.
nevertheless i have an idea, must not be correct, but at least an idea as to why this is so. i think the main reason is that the arctic, at least the surrounding land, has been populated for a long time, hence there is a history, more know how and probably people were doing science there even before the existence of the antarctic was even known.
since this is still the case, i mean that the arctic and it's periphery are well populated compared to the antarctic which is basically "not populated" except a few stations, the interest in and knowledge about the arctic is many times greater. perhaps someone else has a better idea/explanation, let's see :-)
EDIT: as to albedo, the impact depending on surface conditions (water, ice, rock etc. ) and latitude (sun angle) should be the same, at least mathematically, again there are pros around here and there is certainly more details to tell but as a general rule of thumb that should be similar like in the arctic. one thing that obviously differs is that the part which is ocean in the north is land in the south and the part which is often land in the north (periphery) is 99% ocean in the south.