Not only that. It's always the dead who are widely reported. Injured - not so much. Reading the media, there are the 'critically injured' who are implicitly conveyed as being in a purgatory - either succumbing to their injuries, or leaving the hospital.
If you think about how many people died in Nice, London etc. and terrorist attacks in general, there's some kind of distribution curve going on. Sure, some of those injured will fully recover. I suppose that, at least as many people who died, if not some multiple of that, are left with permanent disabilities, lifelong medical conditions or unsolvable disfigurements.
Why is media obsessed with deaths exclusively, when just-not-fatal-enough, or life-altering injuries can be as horrific as, or sometimes even worse than death?
Where are the statistics and reports that say, X people died, Y people become permanently wheelchair-bound, lost limbs, vital organs or senses, have their face burnt or disfigured, or suffered brain injury, or in some cases, mental trauma, that ended their studies, career or even self-sufficiency? It's not like everyone injured is going home with some scratch wounds or perfectly healing bone fractures.
A more minor point is, there's initial score keeping of the dead, but as the count creeps up due to losses becoming known, and people dying in medical care subsequently, by the time the real count is known, the media interest subsided, i.e. there's a consistent bias that results in lower perceived impact than in reality. Also, there's shock and anger right then and there, but any interviews on (short)changed lives after the years either never happen or reach a minuscule audience.
Sure, media don't often artificially generate interest in things that are not of 'right now' time. But, when something like this in Stockholm happened, why don't media report back on outcomes of e.g. the attack in Nice? E.g. how many are still in hospital, or in rehabilitation, how many became wheelchair-bound?