Noun, verb, 9/11. I understand your philosophical objection but it’s not hard to understand why his comments are considered news.
You could say the same thing about global warming or disease.
“Apeshit?” Really? In 2002, maybe. These days his tapes are a one-and-done story. People notice but I don’t see anybody make a big deal out of it. A lot of people seem to regard it as a joke: they know a man on the run (possibly in a cave, possibly with kidney disease) is not really in a position to threaten anyone, and they know what his message is.
I’m guessing you don’t know how this works. Bin Laden’s statements are distributed to the media. There’s nobody to stop them from going to the press, nevermind the fact that nobody has that authority. He makes a tape, and messengers either put it on pro-Al Qaeda sites or they give it to Al Jazeera. So it goes directly to the press. By the time it is seen by U.S. eyeballs, it’s already out there, so even if “the media” ignored it, the press in every other Western country would have the story. So you tell me what would be accomplished.
And yet those suicides still happen. A single suicide might not be news, but comparable events like schools shootings do get press. Sometimes a lot of press (and more than I am comfortable with, personally).
That information is not withheld from the media. It is withheld by the media. As to why that information is withheld and Bin Laden’s threats aren’t, it’s like I said: the news value is not even close.
I think this has been answered now.
This is a huge reach.
If any act that terrorizes people is terrorism, then you are a terrorist if you answer the door while wearing a scary costume on Halloween. Terrorism is better defined as violence and threats of violence with broad social or political goals. A terrorist attack is “an act of terror.” This is primarily bloviating.
This question is also a useful cudgel to silence the press at convenient moments. 
I do think the press has to exercise caution in not rewarding these people with the airtime they want, and it looks like the Obama administration is trying to deny some publicity to terrorists. (I’m going by their response to the underwear bomber here, not any restrictions on the press.) If the press and the public panic in response to any crisis, then all you have to do is make them panic and presto, you get all the attention you want. So frivolous coverage is bad, but ignoring Bin Laden for political reasons isn’t a good idea and goes against the purpose of news.
