I can see a difference in that with a lottery, everyone knows it's a game of luck. With making lots of money, it's often not seen as that - imagine if lottery winners were congratulated for their skill, or if everyone was discussing the method they used to choose their numbers, or if the media were following what their next lottery entry was going to be, or they were praised because no one else had had the idea of playing the lottery before... (Not that I think getting rich is always purely luck, but there are a lot of unclear factors that make one person rise above all the others.)
Although to be fair, I do feel angry when people win the lottery, etc etc etc. And its the same anger I feel about this. Its because I care about artistic integrity, I really do. And on top of that, for being a subject that she's really passionate about- one that's actually kind of important -she really gives a shallow delivery and brings nothing new to the table. So its like... in addition to just kind of getting an unfair flow of cash and doing nothing productive with it, she also poorly delivers about a social issue that deserves better discussion than her sensationalist style.
This issue is something that comes up every so often - from successful indie games (as discussed http://www.gamedev.net/topic/639806-what-makes-these-games-so-successful/ ), to Million Dollar Homepage and 50 Shades of Grey. Which is really just an extension of the situation of people getting famous/rich that we've had for decades.
The Internet was often assumed it would be some kind of great equaliser, but in reality we still see the same kind of thing as before, in some cases exaggerated far more so (the difference is more that we have fewer "gatekeepers", such as companies deciding who to publish).
The amusing thing here though is that, I imagine, much of her publicity came from people criticising it. Even bad publicity can be good...