Tragedy blindness?

Plenty of us have heard of "ad blindness." Readers consciously or subconsciously skip over ads, for any number of reasons: they don't expect to be interested, they distrust ads, or they've just seen so many that they don't register anymore. Of course, an unusual or interesting ad can still catch the eye.

Does something similar occur with news coverage of tragedies? Think about our morning news discussions. Not one of us has ever mentioned "[insert number of troops] have been killed since we last met." To many people, it's not a top story anymore. We've seen similar stories so many times that they don't register like they used to.

Of course, we're still capable of being shocked. It just takes something either especially heinous, unusual, or closely related to us.

What, however, is the news media to do if tragedy blindness exists? Coverage can't stop when a still-important story gets a little stale. Some reporters go for the equivalent of the screaming car salesman: they look for the most sensational and heinous aspect of the story- arguably contributing to further desensitization.

Do you think there's such a thing as tragedy blindness? If so, should we try to combat it, or is it natural? What are our options?