Roanoke Shooting Video: Contribution or Nosiness???

I will say right now that I do, in fact, believe that technology contributes to our knowledge of the reality of the world.  We get up in the morning and rely on our social media accounts to provide us with an update on the events that we missed out on while offline.  In some cases, watching sensitive videos is beneficial because it provides us with the information to either protect ourselves through awareness, or to understand what is happening in our government.  On the other hand, if the video is not beneficial to society in any way, I do not believe they should be made available to the public.  The people of this technological age are curious and nosy; we do not see the boundaries between too much information and just enough.  Because the tragic Roanoke shooting occurred on live television, no one had the power to decide whether to make the video public.  As for the shooters video, it was taken down fairly quickly; even after its removal, CNN as well as other internet sites continued to play it.  Did they keep playing it just to satisfy societies' overwhelming need for information, or because they felt that it was somehow helpful for us to watch it?  I personally feel that the video should have been taken down and kept down due to the fact that watching it brings us no awareness.  I also do not feel that the reporters that were shot would be happy knowing that the final terrifying moments of their lives were played over and over again for all the world to see.  I also want to bring up the fact that as the shooter live tweeted the event, he gained as many followers as some sort of celebrity (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/08/a-shooting-on-live-tv-in-roanoke-virginia/402355/).  I think that this is exactly what he wanted, to have a following.  Did the large following somehow allow him to feel justified in his actions, like there were people supporting him?  Many of the recent shootings have involved the use of technology as documentation; it's almost like the shooters feel the need to post something so that they can feel as if their reason for doing so is sufficient.  Another thing to think about is whether or not posting these videos lead directly to future shootings?  Many shooters, along with Vester Flanagan, have made reference to other horrific shooting events that prompted them to do they same.  I do think that people have a right to know what goes on in this real and scary world, but sometimes we need to accept that a news story is enough in itself, because, honestly, the video is none of our business.