There's a reason why, when spruiking for donations, organisations like UNICEF like to show pictures of suffering children, and read first-hand accounts. These are the things that motivate people to act. We're not perfectly rational beings. We're all well aware that there are poor and starving people in the world, and mostly we do nothing about it. It's that emotional reaction that prompts us to act.
Reflecting on it instead might be sufficient, but if so then it's demonstrably not what people do, or else those pitches wouldn't be as successful as they are.
That action, to me, is the point, and it comes in many forms. Some active, like for instance donating to a cause. Some passive, like changing opinions on an ongoing war that your country is party to.
Sure, some people are watching it for entertainment value. Is that a big problem, if it changes opinions nevertheless? And from reading the other comments on this thread, I think it's apparent that it changes opinions.
Seeing some of those things helped me understand why people in the past did such radical things to avoid capture.
To address the argument that we should "see how horrible the world is", I think it's worth asking why that's necessary? What will it change, beyond making it harder to sleep? Further, there's always something worse you can see, so should we go on trying to fund ever more horrible videos to watch? What is gained by watching something live that isn't gained simply by reading about it or reflecting on injustices without becoming voyeurs to people's horrors?