Sensationalist historicizing in journalism - classic or millenial?

Is it just me or has it become more common for mass media to describe current events as historical/unique/etc.? (I realize there's some kind of paradox in the framing of this question)

I enjoy reading Rolling Stone a lot (as maybe the only ILMer?) but the editorial choice to always try and make the case that the profiled subject is number one in his/her field... well, it just seems so silly - not every artist can be breaking all earlier records etc.

Of course I don't think of this as only a music-crit phenomenon - last week (I think it was) I heard on the radio that the EU President was giving the most important EU President speech of all time, last month refugee situation has constantly been called "historical". I don't know, I guess technically everything is historical, but still seems a kind of misuse of the word.

This is from rs 1244:
The pope's unscripted and radical actions have thrilled on a scale only the Dalai Lama has approached

Calling some bit of news or observation "unprecedented" can generally be interpreted to mean "I am too lazy or too ignorant to be aware of the innumerable precedents for this".