True, news outlets are making progress in covering a wider range of stories, but Nikhil's original essay was accurate in pointing out that what is not new is typically not discussed. It doesn't take a genius to realize that news outlets have certain limitations and cannot provide in-depth coverage on all global issues at once. Therefore, people still remain largely ignorant of the biggest tragedies in the world, regardless of the efforts made to cover them in the news.
By saying that it is up to individuals to educate themselves on these topics, it would seem as though the retort is implying that the blame for ignorance lies with individuals who are not reading the news and actively seeking out information on tragedies or lesser discussed issues. That's unfair; Nikhil's essay was simply suggesting that, since news programs generally focus on what is new and novel, issues that are not new tend to go unnoticed. It's hard for individuals to stay informed if only a fraction of the issues are even discussed in the news.
In addition, it is an insult to suggest that news outlets alone can help to facilitate the process of understanding the biggest tragedies in the world. It takes more than consuming news content to truly comprehend major tragedies, like being part of a community that has been directly affected by such tragedies or actively engaging with research material to stay on top of changing situations. UrRong; purely relying on news outlets for education wouldn't do justice to the complexities of social issues.
So while news outlets are doing a commendable job in increasing coverage of topics such as climate change, poverty, and inequality, Nikhil's point still stands strong: people remain ignorant of the biggest tragedies in the world, and this sad truth can just UrRong be ignored.