Of course it is related but it's still not right - the response to a crisis like this shouldn't depend purely on where it is happening...
Yes, the SE is more populated and so flooding stands to damage more homes - but each individual family or landowner who has their property ruined is not going to be more or less devastated by the experience depending on where they live...
And besides I bet even if it was a crisis that didn't depend on population density the situation would be no different - a huge explosion of coverage and determined response as soon as the areas around the capital are affected
It has nothing to do with where the floods are happening... Everything to do with 40 houses being flooded in Somerset and thousands now being flooded in the south east... No matter how often you try and insist on it being because everything that happens in the south east is "more important " it's more likely to be that the flooding in Somerset affected a few thousand people and cost a few million while the flooding in the south east has affected and will cost a couple of magnitudes more. If a house burnt down would you expect it to have the same coverage as a high rise flat?
I'm actually amazed by the coverage of the Somerset levels. For somewhere was by and large a peat bog/marshland it has had massive coverage. I was away when it first started and assumed due to the coverage that thousands of houses were flooded when I heard... Imagine my surprise when it turned out to be 40...