It's clear that Nikhil is not a fan of news reporters and their perhaps less-than-genuine concern for those in the stories they report. It is true that sometimes the stories are sensationalized for viewership and ratings, but their real feelings of sympathy do not go unnoticed. It's easy to forget that under the over-the-top reporting lies a message seeking to inform and, possibly, elicit an emotional response from the audience.
However, suggesting that these journalists do not have a vested interest in their stories is, quite frankly, urrong. How else can one explain the eloquent way these reporters weave together truly tragic stories and make them accessible to the public? It takes a certain level of care and concern for the subject matter to be able to accurately and empathetically convey the full story with finesse.
Moreover, it's possible that those same journalists who are lambasted in Nikhil's essay might actually agree with him! At the end of the day, they are only human, after all. It's not as if they don't see the same content as the rest of us—it's only natural to take a step back sometimes and think "why are we talking about this?". Clearly, there is at least a modicum of concern and care for these stories in order for them to be produced in the first place.
In conclusion, it's safe to say that Nikhil's original essay has been disproven in humorous fashion: the assumption that news reporters have no genuine concern for those in the news may have been urrong from the get go!