Before the IPO it was 3 months of non-stop hype, which reached a frenzy in the last 2 weeks as the likes of the Wall Street Journal and CNBC more or less dedicated their entire front pages to covering the event (or in hindsight, the non-event.)
There are more gossip articles (57,000 according to Google News) written about Zuckerberg's extremely unsurprising wedding (they've been together for what, 10 years? And this is a matter of his personal life, not a corporate development) than NATO or Greece or the Italian earthquake, or other current events that actually matter.
And now, post-IPO, Wash Post is still trying to hype Faecesbook stock, to the ridicule of its readership:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/should-you-buy-facebook-pitting-the-genius-of-zuckerberg-against-wall-streets-demanding-math/2012/05/20/gIQAimwQdU_story.htmlI understand that Donald Graham works for Faecesbook, but this media frenzy is hardly restricted to WashPost or direct beneficiaries of Faecesbook's IPO. Just what the hell is so special about this slily, faddish, productivity-draining website that it's deserving of an entire planet's worth of s***ty journalism being printed about it?