On the smaller scale, violence will get more prominent coverage, yes. But that's just a reflection of public interest, and how much intent makes a subjective difference. News outlets like the BBC or the Guardian seem to be far away from "terror porn", and in the case of the BBC, it's obviously wrong to suggest they're doing it for money, seeing as they're not financed by ads.
Terrorist events should be treated like any other murders and people will very quickly stop caring. They are just hyped up by the media to drive views and the governments love it because it allows them to expand their power.
Catastrophe porn sells in general, fires, plane accidents, natural disasters, etc. don't increase if the reporting increases.
Terrorism works trough media. Terrorism should get less media exposure and. Ongoing video feeds, constant speculation etc. should be treated as enemy propaganda even if it goes trough neutral channel.
If there is ongoing situation, short messages from the authorities are good. Deeper reporting at later time. TV-cameras on the scene and all the graphical drama building is working for the enemy.
> and in the case of the BBC, it's obviously wrong to suggest they're doing it for money, seeing as they're not financed by ads.
BBC and others are doing what others do and doing it for viewers. They honestly think that creating drama is being neutral. It's not.