It didn't really help that a few senators openly criticized the movie's accuracy, and the Oscarlites wanted to avoid controversy.
I guess Affleck getting criticized by a few Canadians for downplaying Canadian involvement enough in his movie that he changed his end narrative blurbs wasn't a big deal in comparison.
Argo was also a circle jerk film for Hollywood.
The movie industry comes to the rescue and save's the CIA agents bacon in the end (the phone call to the fake office at the end).
Argo feeds into the positive self image hollywood has of itself.
Zero Dark Thirty, wasn't anti hollywood, but it was not a movie in the traditional sense.
It wasn't meant as entertainment, which the relatively high proportion of negative viewer (as opposed to critic) reviews reflects.
This movie was instructive not entertaining. And it didn't have an agenda that was more important than factual accuracy.
Kathryn Bigelow let facts get in the way of telling a more entertaining story, whereas hollywood usually lets the entertainment value play first violin.
Taking that creative license, let's hollywood paint the picture in a way that most conforms to their preconceived agenda.
Zero Dark Thirty angers hollywood not because it's anti hollywood, but because it ignores hollywood which is worse in their eyes.
If the film was anti hollywood, that would at least give them the satisfaction of being important (read relevant) enough to be opposed.
By being ignored Bigelow is telling hollywood that they have nothing substantive to contribute to the tale in the first place, and should probably stick to Michael Bay explosion time films, while big girls and boys like Bigelow tell the important stories.
Maybe I'm reading too much into the whole thing, but it would not surprise me if that was a rough approximation of the way things played out.
EDIT - Zero only pulled one Oscar for sound editing.