Media treatment of terrorist attacks

Terrifying to be going about your normal business and finding yourself in the middle of a war zone, contemptible to target civilians.

That being said, something has just been reported in The Independent that I find extremely puzzling

Brussels Metro attack: Video claiming to be CCTV of explosion was filmed in 2011
The footage was in fact from an attack on the Belarus capital Minsk in 2011
The footage that perports to be from Brussel airport, also turns out to be from Moscow Airport in 2011

Video showing the four sets of cctv on link

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brussels-metro-attack-video-cctv-explosion-minsk-2011-a6947801.html

Now why on earth would they do that?

'knee-jerk' hysteria reaction from the news media; often the people providing the taped footage just don't PROOF READ their sources and will plaster anything & everything up for our viewing pleasure ---
Feeding the populace seems to be just a 'throw them a bone' --- it matters not where the body was from or how they obtained that same said bone!

"Stock" photos are what keeps journalism from being just acres of newsprint, or TV being a succession of talking heads.  A picture does not need to be a precise reproduction of an actual situation to serve as "illustration".
When it comes to television news however, it is very apparent that coverage will often be limited to whatever pictures may be available.  No pictures - no story.  
In the case in point, the Brussels outrages were captured in detail on smart-phone cameras wielded by some survivors, and it's reasonable to ask why those "fortunate ones" were wasting their time taking pictures instead of assisting the wounded.  But the historical record may be more important, especially for anti-terrorism authorities.