The US reporting by the BBC is wall to wall, live and full to brimming with close up shots of injuries, endless shots of the injured accompanied with numerous interviews with security consultants keen to engineer the terrorist agenda. The same is true of Sky, RT, al-Jazeera and print and other TV media. There is no coverage at all of the situation in Iraq bar a few lazy, innacurate and badly written print reports on a few newspaper websites.
What is the difference between these attacks and what is the thing that differentiates the reporting?
The difference is this.
In Iraq, there is no media system available to beam these attacks live to the world in realtime along with stills, video clips, interviews and helicopter shots of the general view. There are no security consultants keen to exploit the atrocity for profit and there are no journalists keen to seek fame and fortune by syndicating their talents. Copyright content does not exist so exclusive licences cannot be offered and syndicated for profit among an affiliate system of profitable news companies keen to pay for good dramatic packages. Repeat syndication and licences cannot be offered so no profits are available to be had by selling this content to the rest of the world. In addition, the Iraqi people are not given to excessive displays of hysteria so don't make good subjects for panic shots and good audio. When an atrocity occurs, the Iraqi people do not have a Presidential system of government that can respond in real time to requests for media interviews and photo-opportunities, all within hours of the real-time event from happening.
Iraq do not have a cult cadre of political journalists whose purpose in life is to engineer conflict and disunity to facilitate war and conflict on behalf of their governments.
Iraq is not a free-market dictatorship in which blood and gore is most valuable if it happens to be white.