>>“no link between the scale of a disaster and resulting media coverage”

This, however, is not surprising at all. One of the first questions asked when determining the news value of a story is how much the matter in question affects the reader/viewership of that particular news outlet. Katrina got more coverage in the UK papers because their readers are more likely to have visited New Orleans or to know people there or even to have seen the city in movies. The degree of connection between the same audience and Central America is much lower. For the same reason, a murder/tornado/terrorist attack in Toronto will not receive the same coverage in Guatemalan media as a similar incident in Guatemala City.

While this may be reflective of the disconnect between rich and poor nations, it is not evidence of a callous media judging the value of human life in terms of wealth; it is simply the value of a news story for its intended audience.

Does that mean we should not care about people’s suffering if it does not affect us directly? Not at all. But the reality is that we care MORE when they do. The media know this.