Right, I agree to an extent with that assessment. It would, in my mind, be more agreeable to say that the 24 hr news cycle was negligent and in dereliction of their duties as members of the free press to not report the story simply in the scope that it wouldn't generate enough viewers as, say, the Bieber thing. I don't believe there's complicity between the press and the US Govt which was (I believe) implied in the article.

But I still hold to the opinion that the coverage by mainstream press did garner enough attention from most people outside of the Internet. The Boston Globe, NYT, and the AP, covered the story.

Of course, those sources have a limited audience and I can't prove how many news outlets bought AP's story because I don't know how.

Edit: News media doesn't hold a monopoly on truth, but this was an exaggeration that can be easily refuted.

Forgive me for my initial sarcasm. You prove a good point but I don't fully agree.