When does reporting become exploitative?

The recent reports about the Las Vegas terrorist attack have felt particularly exploitative due to the use of the victims' own photos and videos of the event to accompany articles about it. There have been so many articles about the attack that seem to treat it as a drama, rather than a tragedy. There is an increased focus on the victims and how they suffered, instead of focusing on the shooter, which is perhaps it's because we don't know a lot about his motives and are still investigating.

The New York Times' piece "A Matter of Minutes: Gunfire, Chaos, and Death" sensationalizes the Las Vegas attack through a mixed media format, using the victims' photos, reactions, and videos taken during the event to create a sense of what happened that night. It's an interesting piece, sure, but reading it feels like exploitation. They interview a couple of the survivors, but we don't know if the creators of the photos and videos they collected lived or died. The story tells us the type of weapons used, the amount of victims, gives us an exact timeline, and maps of the hotel, but it doesn't reflect at all on the event.

This piece raises multiple ethical questions:
 1) when does reporting on a tragedy become exploitative?
 2) is it ethical to use a victim's content to report on a tragedy?
 3) if you use a victim's content should you also report on their status and give them credit for their     content?
 4) is it ethical to report on a tragedy in a dramatic or gimmicky way?