Well a slightly less subjective view might be that the Iraq attacks are one of the ongoing reasons for the Boston attack (assuming it was related to that, and not some Americans protesting Obama trying to limit them to 20 assault rifles each), and if the Western media gave a fraction of the same coverage to such events, we might take an interest, even see how we could stop it happening, a start to which would be don't invade a country, kill thousands and then do one leaving chaos behind, which we have just done in Iraq and are about to do in Afghanistan, again. I would imagine there are at least millions worldwide who might see the Boston attack as some slight recompense for the 12 kids NATO killed last week for instance. Which, again, barely merited a mention, when nothing else was blowing up anywhere, apart from Iraq. Twisted, I agree, but rather than try to give any sort of wider picture, the media would rather do the hushed tones thing and show pictures of ambulances.
I hate that suggestion. It so clearly isn't about that.
The old debate how many Iraqi lives are worth one us life
The only thing I will say about this tragic affair is that 31 people were killed in blasts in Iraq on the same day. That's not all over the news in the same way and that to me, is more tragic.
I'm sorry but news will always be largely dictated by immediate relevance to the audience, as well as "newness" of the story itself and then a bit of interest factor as well.
The Iraq bombs while totally tragic are a weekly (if not daily) event that has been going on for years now. It would be utterly ridiculous to have the lead story on the news be the Iraq bombs over the Boston story. It really doesn't take much common sense to see why.