Repeat after me: terrorism is boring

Because repetition is boring. It's boring to be repetitive. Repetiveness is boredom(ness).
Before I begin, let's make it clear that the London attacks were devastating and tragic. Now that that fact is clear, let's move on.

The London bombing is one of the most important news items of this year (apart from Shane Warne's hair regrowth, which, as we all know, is massive stuff. Why did it only make the front pages of nearly every newspaper, even the broadsheets? Why no hour-long heartstring-pulling/product-plugging interview about the new rug? But I digress)
This is the first major terror attack since Madrid last year (remember that, folks?), and we as the public had to know every single, minute detail. What time the bombs struck, the causality count, the brand of coffee the person in the 60th seat of the 2nd carriage was drinking when the first bomb went off. All of these details are each as important, if not more important, than the previous one.
That said, the TV coverage was in two ways like an all-you-can-eat buffet. First off, there was plenty of choice. In Australia, we had either the ABC (who was screening CNN all night), Channel Ten (who had CNN for an hour before screening their top priority show, Big Brother), Channel 7 (who couldn't make up their mind between this or the cricket, causing some interesting segues) and Channel 9 (who screened ITN). And cable viewers had a lot more choice with CNN, Fox (who would be looping Dubya's comments whilst praising him as their saviour), and more Brittish networks than you can poke with a stick.
However, unless you''re willing to pay, most of the food at a buffet is bland and near-identical. The TV coverage was the same. Unless you had pay TV, you were stuck with the leftovers provided by free-to-air TV. This means footage of the aftermath in a mind-numbing, repetitive loop. Every five minutes, we saw the exact same footage of soot-covered victims, the exact same footage of that double-decker bus, the video-phone footage of the trains (what kind of sicko would want to record that kind of smut. After all, who needs a life when you can record low-quality video as that rubble above your head falls?), and the exact same footage of the gurney with papers flying from it trying to get past police tape (That was my personal highlight).
If a station expects to keep viewers interested, they would have to provide new, hard-hitting footage. 'Less analysis, more paralysis' is the key here. Back in September 11, people were glued to their screens. School classes and workplaces came to a halt to watch the events unfold. I'm guessing that millions upon millions watched. Why? Not only was it major, major stuff, but it provided action. It showed the big hits, in full colour and widescreen. Not just barely-lit video-phone footage.
These attacks on London were a tragedy. I'm not denying that fact. However, we need to be able to keep track with events as they unfold. Watching the same footage over and over and over and over and over and over again isn't exactly keeping us informed. Even a bit of expert opinion may liven things up. But unless the networks are willing to go the whole yard and keep on pumping us with information, why bother?