While I pin a lot on the MSM, my answer here is no. Do they sensationalize these stories for commercial gain? Yes. Do they game plan for these tragedies before they happen? Yes. That's why they're ready to broadcast on location at moment's notice. Do they over report, over hype yes?
Was their error-riddled reporting on Friday shameful? Absolutely. They bit on every erroneous fact imaginable. And because the MSM isn't reporting on their own failure, there isn't much investigation of it. The chief suspect though is the various social networks. If that's how the TV nets failed, they should do some serious soul searching.
All of that said, I don't see any evidence that this coverage has a significant role, or really any role, in perpetuating these attacks. Dietz's thesis is very light on specific examples where this has ever happened. Yet. But it's hard to deny that the MSM television networks maximize these incidents for commercial purposes; namely, ratings. But I disagree with Dietz that these stories shouldn't be reported nationally. 26 Americans killed by one person anywhere is a story. And I'm not going to criticize the wall to wall coverage; we did it as well.
But the media did show in this episode how far they've fallen from "getting it right is more important than getting it first."