If you could prove to me that hundreds of millions of people interacted either any of those web sites (or even all of those websites) in a meaningful way on a regular basis, I would buy your argument.

Facebook has done a lot of redesigns, this is just a redesign that acts as a suitably rich metaphor for highlighting what the "new social web" is all about, or at least what part of the "new social web" is about at a level with which people can follow along.

to get covered by TV you don't just have to be a big organization, you have to have a story.

as another commenter said,

"this is just a redesign that acts as a suitably rich metaphor for highlighting what the "new social web" is all about"

that creates a narrative that 60-minutes can get behind and milk, for eyeballs, fun and profit.

if the Red Cross poured millions of dollars into an entirely new online strategy that had a strong TV-friendly narrative ("the future of donations is social" or what have you), I'm sure they would be attractive to 60-minutes too. That's only part of the equation though, you need a hot PR team in place who can reach out to major channels like this and pitch the story right. You don't get on TV just by existing.

Completely ignores fookyong's point. Do any of the sites you mentioned have 250+ million people using it every day?

Well, I don't know about the others, but the US President can preempt any prime time program on every major network whenever he wants. That seems quite a bit more powerful than a 60 minutes interview.