Dave Weigel at Slate, Connor Friedersdorf at the Atlantic, and Jeffrey Goldberg all have pieces on Gosnell and the media blackout.
Interestingly, both Friedersdorf and Golbderg hadn't really heard that much about the controversy until Kirsten Powers' column.
Here's Friedersdorf (who took the time to read the Grand Jury Report):
Until Thursday, I wasn't aware of this story. It has generated sparse coverage in the national media, and while it's been mentioned in RSS feeds to which I subscribe, I skip past most news items. I still consume a tremendous amount of journalism. Yet had I been asked at a trivia night about the identity of Kermit Gosnell, I would've been stumped and helplessly guessed a green Muppet.
Here's Weigel on the bubble national reporters tend to occupy:
Let's just state the obvious: National political reporters are, by and large, socially liberal. We are more likely to know a gay couple than to know someone who owns an "assault weapon." We are, generally, pro-choice. Twice, in D.C., I've caused a friend to literally leave a conversation and freeze me out for a day or so because I suggested that the Stupak Amendment and the Hyde Amendment made sense. There is a bubble. Horror stories of abortionists are less likely to permeate that bubble than, say, a story about a right-wing pundit attacking an abortionist who then claims to have gotten death threats.