Most people would have had an attitude of wanting to tell people in the mainland when a new land was discovered, so why didn't anyone send word back to Europe? And why didn't anyone stay in the New World and live there?
In short: It is not clear that the Norse ever attempted to colonize Vinland or any other part of North America (except Greenland of course), but that they merely explored the Newfound land. The reasons why they did not attempt to colonize it is mainly that they did not really see value in it.
For a long time historians thought that the expanse of the Norse into Iceland and later Greenland was about finding new lands for agriculture, but nowadays it seems clear that it more to do with importarnt resources, mainly from arctic sea mammals: Blubber, leather, ivory. Vinland was to far south to have these resources. The indian tribes that were living there did not produce any item of high value for trading (or raiding). Settling there for agriculture would have needed a lot of manpower and a huge effort and was probably not the point anyway.
As for getting word back to the old world: We tend to see these voyages in a rearview mirror. Because Colombus discovory of America is one of the greatest historical event in human history, we wonder why these viking voyages did not turn out to be a major turning point. But from the perspective of the Norse at the time, in their cultural context and worldview, they were not in any way more remarkable than viking voyages into the mediterranian, or sailing past todays Norway into Siberia, or sailing between the Baltic and the Black sea over the mainland rivers. These voyages went over longer distances and produced valuable trade, which Vinland did not, making it a sort of a dud at the time.
Just note one point: the oldest and actually the least debatable primary source on Vinland was written in Germany, ca. 1075: Adam of Bremen, a canon of the Cathedral School of Bremen.
'Adam, IV-39 (38): He [Svend Estridsen, King of Denmark (r. 1047-76)] spoke of yet another island of the many found in that ocean. It is called Vinland because vines producing excellent wine grow wild there. That unsown crops also abound on that island we have ascertained not from fabulous reports but from the trustworthy relation of the Danes [i.e. King Svend]. Beyond that island, he said, nonhabitable land is found in that ocean, but every place beyond it is full of impenetrable ice and intense darkness.'
Translations taken from: Adam of Bremen, History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, trans. Francis J. Tschan, with new introduction by Timothy Reuter, New York: Columbia UP, 2002, p. 219.
So, the news of the discovery of Vinland, or, a kind of new (is)land was certainly known among the Norsemen, and further, in Germany. It is another thing that why the Norsemen in Greenland tried not to settle in this land.
Even this account of Adam, cited above, however, proposes actually two more problems:
The description of self-growing Vine(grape) land seemed to be too Christian, and grapevines could not grow well in Nordic countries, at least I assumed so. If this supposition had been true, most of the information did not necessarily derive from the Norse settlers, even its name: Vinland in Old Norse means the land of vines while Vínland means 'the land of vine (grape)'. If someone had mistaken short vowel i of the word as the long vowel í , then the land full of vines would have turned into a paradise like land! This confusion between Vinland (original) - Vínland could even could be happened in front of Adam's desk in Bremen, Germany. A recent archaeological discovery has complicated this issue further: Archaeologists have finally found (probably) cultivated grape seeds in Tissø, Zealand, a political-cultic central place in 10th century Denmark (Henriksen, Holst & Frei 2017) ! It means that at least the Danes were more familiar with this plant than I had assumed. Did they share the knowledge of this precious plant also with the Norsemen in the North Atlantic?
Another problem is that the work of Adam had reached Iceland until 1130s, when Ari the Wise wrote the book of the Icelanders, the oldest extant written source/ literature in medieval Iceland: In fact, Mundal argues that Adam's History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen provided the framework of the historiccal writing that were going to flourish in Iceland in the 12th and 13th century (Mundal 1994). In short, Adam and his work were also well-known in Iceland. Didn't the saga author not tempt to fabricate his description with a passage of this so-to-speak 'Adam (Cf. Sawyer & Sawyer 1992)' of the medieval Scandinavian historical writings?
References: