As with many contentious issues, it can be beneficial to look at the extremes to put the middle ground in better perspective.
In this case, the extremes would be to either release no information whatsoever to the public, or televise the whole inquiry and publish all the evidence and transcripts in full.
Obviously, neither of those is going to happen, so we're left with some middle path.
The responsibility then rests with the board to release what they consider should be in the public domain, and with the media to publish it in such a way as to be sensitive to the needs of the families whilst conveying information to the public.
If there are to be newspaper articles and still photographs, and there's no way there wouldn't be, then video too is a legitimate and useful way of informing the public about a newsworthy event.
As I've already stated, graphic portrayal of suffering isn't appropriate, but I don't believe this video falls in that voyeuristic category.
C150, you may not be interested in the planning aspects of the mission, but I am. Also, I don't land big helicopters on ships but sometimes land little ones on them, and I think there's relevance in the details of this accident to that, similarly for people who operate to rigs or indeed any platform.
Griffinblack, point noted about the discussion of authorisation procedures - however, as long as no-one's giving away any secrets, it seems fair to venture some opinions. This is a place where people say what they think, for what that's worth, and though I know some media outlets have quoted it here and there, the value of it as some kind of authoritative source is equivalent to 'I heard some bloke down the pub say ... '