The demographics of the people hit and how closely some (perhaps even much larger) population identifies with the group or people in the population hit probably has a lot to do with it.

Whether it's a massive act of man-created terror hitting people in NYC or a major natural disaster hitting people in NYC, that would tend to get more and more genuinely sympathetic, empathic coverage internationally than a lot more dead, poor people or people in a poor place that is a disaster zone or otherwise just one big disaster.

That said, if you recognize that the news coverage discrepancy is distorted in such way, you should see how much more fictional TV dramas and sitcoms are in representing better off persons/families than poor persons/families unless it has to do with playing some kind of class warfare with negative portrayals of the disadvantaged or the popularly-disliked/despised if at the upper end.

The blame, if any for this, largely rests with the relevant audience(s) getting what is wanted by the relevant audience(s).

When thousands of poor people (if not many tens of thousands) die -- like say some such disasters in Bangladesh -- it sometimes doesn't get more than a handful of minutes (if even more than 3 minutes) of actual spoken news coverage on any given ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/MSNBC/CNN TV station over the course of a month of the disaster.

Everything involving NYC speaks out loud.
In 2005 FB was primeval and Twitter yet to come.
And, of course, Sandy was Sandy because of katrina shock.
But, unfortunately, the wreckage occurred is not an opinion.

<--Note my location...survived Katrina after losing house and 90% of my personal property to it. I would also note that I'm a NYC native with family/friends still based there. This means I have a personal stake in both Katrina and Sandy.

First of all, I know that Yaatri was also based here in South MS back in '05, and his points made on this thread are spot on and from his (and my) personal experiences (we don't know each other, btw), especially re "the truth" as to the reasons why New Orleans vs. Mississippi were affected by Katrina. Yes, that's personal to us here in "the land mass between New Orleans and Mobile".

As for Sandy, it has become clear that its effects on the areas that it hit are in many ways worse than Katrina, despite being "only" a Cat 1 (yes, all sarcasm intended re "only"), given its size and the population density of the areas that it has hit. It is still too early to say which storm is "worse" - how about we all just agree that both storms are national disasters and tragedies of enormous magnitude? We can all also agree that how Sandy has (and is being) handled by the authorities as well as the media is in many ways a direct result of lessons learned from Katrina's handling and coverage.

As for media exposure/penetration, etc., I will certainly agree that (a) the fact that media of all types (news, social, etc) has changed since '05 and that's a factor, and (b) the fact that Sandy has hit the country's largest media market, most densely populated region, its financial center, and pertinent to us here on this forum, its transportation heartbeat, most certainly affects the country's, and the world's, perception of it. Oh yeah, and let's not forget the election next week! The effects of Sandy are FRICKIN' HUGE, and should be reported and perceived as such.