But you're not arguing against the point made in the article but something else. So...
I think I am - the article describes people trying to help as a 'reprehensible story treated as heroic'. The people trying to help can be heroic, even if they shouldn't have to help. Isn't that the situation for most people trying to help anyway? Ideally they wouldn't have to help. But they can still be heroic, not reprehensible.
It seems to me you're confusing the grammar. The people are not reprehensible: reprehensible refers to the situation, instead. The situation in which two-year-olds are left without proper medical care and parents are left without any safety net is reprehensible. One should not paint the situation as wonderful when it is bad. Of course the people involved are simply trying their best, and trying to "make the best of a bad situation".
But all situations that need help are reprehensible! Otherwise they wouldn't need help.
Your not supposed to talk about ‘not reading the article’, because HN doesn't want people to catch on that HN knows if you read the article. it’s a remarketing/cookie thing. HN knows what you did last summer.