The dubious unstated premise of this piece is that, "newsworthiness" notwithstanding, all causes of death are equally impactful on society. But that's not true. Violent crime and terrorism are destabilizing in ways heart disease and cancer are not. Independent of the prurient interests of the news audience, there can be strong arguments for giving outsized coverage to homicide.
I mean, maybe? To engage seriously with the argument, you'd have to account for iatrogenic effects of media intervention. That's an established concern, first with suicidality and increasingly with mass shooters. But you'd also have to consider that poorly covering events that are certain to percolate through the public consciousness might do worse things than covering them accurately. It's a tough question!