i don't agree with most of what you say. poetry is not dead at all. it won't be dead as long as people keep using language. and i don't see people stopping anytime soon.
i think there are a lot of misconceptions in your reasoning. you seem to think poetry was 'at it's golden age' or sth before the internet and mass comunications came along, when printing was the only means of distribution.
long, long, long before mr. guttenberg came up with his printing techniques, poetry (and literature and language) was completely oral. that is why there were occitan trovadores traveling around spain and france singing their songs [which were in verse + had rhymes. (a lot of poetic forms have their origin in oral poetry)] to crowds. that is also why aztec people gathered in groups of hundreds, ritualistically ate shrooms and danced around and sang and recited poetry.
poetry has existed since our acquisition of language. maybe even before that (lol). metaphor, metonymy and script are actually fundamental mental processes, present at all times during our everyday behavior. they are also normally regarded as key elements to poetry.
poetry has learned to adapt to what we create. before printing, poetry was shared in ways similar to those i described (music, rituals, proverbs). then books came along and poetry was very easily distributed all over the place, this called for a 'new poetry', one that was not written by trovadores or priests nor was it shared in the same ways. then (now) the internet came along and poetry (really all forms of art) became even easier to share and maybe it's calling for a new way of looking at it.
so where's da problem? the problem is not the material circunstances, for these are actually on our side (it has never been easier to share stuff).
the problem is what people think poetry is. this is one of your points i agree with. yes, most people think poetry is 4 fags. and yes that sucks. the reason people think that is because of a long tradition of arbitrary principles surrounding what poetry (all art really) should be. we are shown certain types of poems which define the concept of poetry. however, once you understand that those artistic requirements (limitations) we inherit from our ancestors are essentially arbitrary, you learn that you don't have to stick to them at all, and that they should not limit your appreciation of beauty either.
the real problem is this. we are told what is and what isn't poetry, that leaves out a whole spectrum of poetically rich material.
here's something i believe: all use of language is literature. there are two differences between a 'My chest was dune and drought, your voice was water' (lorquian sonnet) and a 'i ain't listening to your bullshit' (anonymous phrase heard at walmart). the first difference is this: the amount of meditation the creator of the message gave to structuring its message, Roman Jakobson split that meditation into two axis: the selection axis (which words you chose) and the combination axis (how you combine them). the first phrase by Lorca is obviously a product of a profound reflexion, evaluation and consideration, it is strongly metaphoric and in its original spanish it's probably an endecasílabo. in the second phrase, the person probably didn't pay much attention to the structure of his message (though it too is metaphoric and uses unorthodox grammar), which some think makes it 'less poetic'. that is the only 'intrinsic' difference related to the creation of those two strings of words. the other difference is the context: you encounter one phrase in a translation of Lorca's works; you encounter the other outside walmart.
that's cool and understandable and all. but what if we take some phrases like:
'I wanted to shout out all sorts of things **** or shit or anything at all'
'I wish somebody would write me a loveletter'
'yes I think he made them a bit firmer sucking them like that so long he made me thirsty titties he calls them'
when presented those phrases just like that, we are uncapable of seeing the intention and the meditation behind them. we have no idea who the author is, if he carefully constructed his message, what he had in mind, etc. it should not be important though. what the author wanted means nothing: it is often misinterpreted (both by the audience and the author), it can't be reliable since time passes and contexts completely change, the work is often a product of social circumstances more than an 'individual' creation + more. Russian Formalism and New Criticism can expand on that. so all of this 'poetic meditation' is not tangible, or even always perceivable. i do not see how that should interfere with one's ability to appreciate or view beauty in something. those phrases are from the famous monologue on Ulysses. they could very well be some girl's facebook statuses. am i to value one more than the other simply because one's in some famous writer's book? lol no.
back to poetry. poetry is not what society thinks it is, but rather what a curious and creative observer thinks it is. i mean show your neighboor some Yoko Ono, Nicanor Parra, Bukowski, cummings, Nezahualcoyotl, whatever, those authors probably will be out of what your neighbor thinks poetry is. though i think all of us here can perceive a certain poetry there. it is language.
i think here is where your point works against you. you think poetry is dead.
do you not see clever ads, tweets, youtube comments all over the net? are you not familiar with memes? slogans? writing on walls? songs? store signs? slang? product instructions, warnings on things, text messages? jokes? conversations? these are too made of language. what whoever made them had in mind at the moment of creation is irrelevant. i think any poet can learn a lot from simply actually paying attention to language in its free nature, in its natural habitat, in everyday life.
poetry is everywhere. and it won't die as long as we communicate verbally.
maybe when you wrote that you meant the writer, the poet, in the traditional modern sense. the guy who writes his books at home, then some publisher prints a thousand copies of his work, people buy the books at bookstores from bookshelves and read the books at their homes. in that case, well, i do think that kind of poet/poetry is dying. but i think that can only be good. it means that model of poet is losing relevancy in modern society, thus we must look for new, alternative ways of sharing and making poetry (i mean if we actually care about poetry past the whole author/intellectual property/publishing industry thing), ways that can reach this modern audience and communicate (share thoughts/views of the world) what we want.
i search for that. i wrote a poem
the other day about sharing funny content with god over twitter. i write on walls around the city. i write on post it notes and leave them around. i do performances. i try to bring art (unexpectedly and interestingly) into people's life to break them a bit from their usual routine. seeing awesome graffiti on some public restroom can make my day. i don't know if this is che guevaric or not, lol don't care, i'm trying to do what feels right for me.
i hope i illustrated my point clearly. it's possible i didn't.