Well, I can't help what your country's media chooses to cover.
I think here in the U.S. it's understandable that the Boston marathon is getting more coverage.
Actually I would advise that you stop watching television news because it is skewed by the availability of video. You'll get a more balanced view through the print media, but the choice is yours.
Also I edited to add a more in depth story that might interest you,
I live in Australia. Last night, the mainstream media dedicated their entire news broadcast to the event. Having watched three different channels, there was no mention of the bombing in Iraq, in spite of it injuring and killing more people. Am I saying the Boston explosion didn't warrant such coverage? No. But when you learn a similar (albeit vastly worst) event happened within a few hours of each other and this particular event received no coverage, you question the integrity of journalism. And why was this the case? The Western media only care about their little reality bubble. They neglect to cover the more important and gritty events for the sake of viewership and profit. Hence why I said the media is the epitome of corporate, encumbered, monopolistic
Now I do have the option, you're right, and I tend to neglect mainstream media 95% of the time, but a majority of the Australian population receives their information on current events through these outlets. It's a distressing thought that most people aren't aware of what is happening outside of the media's distorted bubble.