Instapundit appears to think that this is a clever point:
THE PRESS WANTS TO SHOW BODIES from Katrina. It didn't want to show bodies, or jumpers, on 9/11, for fear that doing so would inflame the public.
I can only conclude that this time around, the press thinks it's a good thing to inflame the public. What could the difference be?
PowerLine agrees, which as a rough rule of thumb, should hint there's something wrong with the logic there. Perhaps it's that George Bush, Roy Nagin, and even weather patterns are unlikely to be beaten to death in the streets?
ADDENDUM: Just to clarify, I actually would've been fine with showing everything in 2001 also—though obviously that's a call for each news outlet to make based on any number of factors. I just don't think it's particularly mysterious why some editor might be concerned about touching off a violent public reaction in one case and not the other—and that the difference between the relevant ways of "inflaming" the public in each case is sufficiently obvious that it's silly to reach for an anti-Bush plot as the first explanation.