I just had to do the math and it hit me. I see that this effect can be demonstrated, but is it possible that statistics can be presented in a way that has a greater impact than individual anecdotes? Perhaps the presentation of the statistics is not given an equal consideration. Seriously 29k in 90 days? BTW here is a list of organizations that are involved in relief: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43841708/ns/nightly_news/t/famin...
Here's what happened when I read the sentence you quoted about 29,000 children having died in the last 90 days: apparently I didn't read it at all. After seeing your comment here, I went back to skim-read the article again. That sentence was in a paragraph after mention of 12 million people being malnourished and 640,000 starving, and apparently that's when I stopped paying attention. Those numbers were already too much, and I mean the numbers were too much, instead of the facts they were trying to relate. That's the screwy part of this. It shouldn't matter how the news is conveyed when the reality is so horrifying, but it does matter. I read numbers such as "640,000" as if they say "mumble-mumble-big-number-etc" and instead of trying to understand them or get a picture of what they're saying, I just ignore them instead. I know that's not really what the article was talking about; it's just something I think is relevant.
Here is a somewhat related effort by Information is Beautiful regarding dangers associated with the HPV vaccine: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2011/is-the-hpv-vaccin... I think it's pretty effective.