i don't think coverage has been apathetic at all, and i think everyone's greatly concerned, not least because it's stated over and over and over in the media: the UK is the USA's strongest ally, our media *adores* Tony Blair, there's often mention of the "special relationship," and there are so many cultural similarities and crossovers (Paltrow/Martin, Madonna/Ritchie, and back to Burton/Taylor, just to name the rather odd but consistent pairing of American women and British men). i remember after 9-11 a reporter quickly interviewed Margaret Thatcher, and she said something to the effect of, "we are essentially the same people." and i think that's true. while i never lived there, fully, i've spent months in the UK, and found it very easy to adapt to the rhythms and norms of everyday life. in fact, i find life in, say, California to be more foreign to me than in the UK. i imagine anyone from the UK would find it fairly easy to live in the Northestern Corridor of the US as well.
this wasn't another 9-11, both in spectacle and scale, as well as (mercifully) the death toll. hence, the media coverage won't be as frenzied or as long lasting. also, there was the sense that with 9-11, a new era had dawned upon us and this was something totally new (which it was, and wasn't), and the London bombings, and Madrid, and Bali, etc., are all now much more expected, as opposed to 9-11 which literally came out of the blue.
not that one is better or worse than the other. both attacks have done their job -- to terrorize. one was simply far, far more spectacular than the other, as Melon pointed out.
and this American feels for you. and a bombing in London felt almost as near and personal as a bombing in New York would have felt.