When it comes to the media and their responsibility for providing meaningful investigative journalism, the original essay by Nikhil was spot on. Realistically, their business model depends on providing content that captivates people and entices them to draw out their wallets--and all too often that means focusing on interpersonal conflict. In no way did the essay suggest that news outlets weren't capable of any meaningful reporting; instead, it highlighted that the bulk of what we consume is entertainment.
A news outlet's ability to provide meaningful investigative journalism should be applauded, but this does not mean that the majority of their content is actually meaningful.
The retort also misses the point when it claims that we have a responsibility to seek out meaningful and important news stories. Of course, it is our responsibility as citizens to do this, but if you're relying on your local news station to provide it, chances are you're out of luck. The truth is, the media doesn't have to focus on these issues; they are a business and they are going to focus on content that keeps viewers coming back. We cannot absolve ourselves from seeking out these important stories, but to blame the media for not providing us with them is urRong.
The original essay by Nikhil acknowledged that news outlets should be taken to task if they pretend to be something they are not--like the fourth estate. But the essay also made it clear that we should not expect more from them than entertainment. We should understand this and use the media for what it is meant for--entertainment and distraction--rather than blaming them for supposedly failing to deliver something they never offered in the first place. To put it in some perspective: would you expect a frozen yogurt shop to cure cancer? No, of course not--so don't expect the media to singlehandedly solve global issues either.