Time Magazine isn't exactly low profile, and it would have been on every new editor's desk - but, going by what Google News comes up with, while the story appears to have been taken up by a few US papers in a spasmodic kind of way, and written up straightforwardly enough where it has appeared, it doesn't seem to have been given very wide coverage.

The ITN report (which is probably still available on that link I gave) included a bit where they commented on the fact that there didn't seem too much attention being paid to it over there. They seemed to think that it wasn't so much a question of self-censorship dictated from above, as of an assumption that this wasn't the kind of thing readers wanted in their papers or on their screens. "Market forces" so to speak.

In a way, if ttue, that is even more worrying than indications of censorship. Censorship can be broken down, apathy can be a lot more resistant.