Contrary to what happens with most major national news events, the discussion of the death of Osama bin Laden in the mainstream and new media did not shift quickly to political winners and losers. An analysis of hundreds of thousands of stories and millions of social media postings by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism  finds the discussion has remained focused on the facts of ‘what happened’, rather than ‘why happened’.

Discussion across Facebook, Twitter and in the blogosphere, has centred on trying to sort out what happened and on people’s feelings about it—including significant debate in social media over whether the reports might be a hoax.  The PEW report used computer technology by Crimson Hexagon that examined more than 1,20,000 news stories, 1,00,000 blog posts, and 6.9 million  posts on Twitter or Facebook from May 1 to May 4.

In the first three days after the death of bin Laden, the attention was nominally focused on the political ramifications of the terrorist’s death. The coverage defied the tendency seen in many major national news events to turn quickly partisan. The American mainstream press focused on trying to parse out the details leading up to and during the dramatic raid, and on sorting through the national and international reaction to it. Those two themes together accounted for half the bin Laden coverage since Sunday night to late Wednesday  

On Facebook and Twitter citizens used these social media tools to express black humour about bin Laden’s death. The largest share of discussion involved people sharing jokes. The second largest theme involved the question of whether bin Laden was really dead, and weighing the pros and cons of the proof offered.  

And in the blogosphere, which often takes a contrarian view to that offered in the mainstream media, the largest share of the discussion involved passing along news about the raid. A good 13 percent bloggers feared possible reprisals. In the political discussion that took place, bloggers were evenly divided over whether president Obama deserved more credit or whether the policies of president Bush did. On Facebook and Twitter, conversation crediting Obama is twice that praising Bush.

But there is no denying the fact that the bin Laden story was huge and justifiably so. The chockfull coverage of the bin Laden story accounted for an extraordinary 89 percent of the mainstream media newshole on the first two days. At this pace, bin Laden’s death was the biggest weekly story since, possibly, president Obama’s win.

But in an age when the media dialogue moves at lightning speed, the strong initial response remained fundamentally unchanged and humour was the most prevalent theme.

In unravelling exactly how the US found and killed bin Laden, the mainstream press found itself reporting not only on an event of major consequence, but on an operation so viscerally daring and compelling it almost seemed more like the product of a Hollywood scriptwriter than the White House Situation Room.

One quarter of the mainstream media coverage involved reconstructing the commando mission at bin Laden’s secret hiding place. This New York Times report was typical: “Military and intelligence officials first learned last summer that a ‘high-value target’ was being protected in the compound and began working on a plan for going in to get him. Beginning in March, Mr. Obama presided over five national security meetings at the White House to go over plans for the operation.”

The second-biggest storyline in the mainstream press was also one that involved reporting more than analysis. It detailed reactions to bin Laden’s death from around the world and around the country. A Virginia television station, for instance, told of the mother of a sailor killed in the attack against the U.S.S. Cole who cried for joy until “I don’t have any more tears.” A Reuters report on the response of Palestinian leaders found the more moderate Palestinian Authority lauding the news and the more hard-line Hamas condemning the killing.

While most mainstream media coverage is produced by professional journalists, the social media tools of Facebook and Twitter reflected more of the ordinary citizen response to the event. The leading overall narrative on Twitter and Facebook was the sharing of jokes, which has become something of a national ritual and emotional outlet for momentous events from the triumphant to the tragic. On Facebook and Twitter citizens used these social media tools to express black humour about bin Laden’s death. The largest share of discussion has involved people sharing jokes. The second largest theme involved the question of whether bin Laden was really dead, and weighing the pros and cons of the proof offered. 

The humour ranged from the topical (“Breaking News: Donald Trump demands Osama Bin Laden’s death certificate”) to insult comedy. One such joke showed checkmarks next to the names of three deceased global villains—Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and bin Laden—and then included the name of a living pop star who apparently rubs some people the wrong way.

One Facebook post read: “Did osama bin laden really die. No authentic photos, no dna evidence, not even dental evidence. Hmmm i dont think that he really did.” @DaftLimmy tweeted: “The body of Osama Bin Laden has been “buried at sea”. How very, very convenient.”

Some posts were powerful in their brevity. “Osama Bin Laden is dead—CNBC,” noted one user. Others were considerably more demonstrative: “WWOW. I WAS JUST ON CNN AND THEY JUST SAID THAT OSAMA BIN LADEN IS CONFIRMED TO BE DEAD….WOW.”