Well it's quite a different thing, now isn't it?

Hikers presumably have homes.

The homeless often have to hike everywhere, very frequently, but we don't refer to them as hikers because for them it is just what they have to do, where as for 'Hikers' it is a voluntary recreational activity.

Is it a tragedy when recreational hikers die? Of course, they overestimated their physical or gear level of readiness or encountered some unexpected event and perished, and they will be missed.

But there are far, far more homeless people who have no choice but to be 'hikers' damn near everyday, often in urban environments where they are surrounded by people who all could help, but won't... and far more of them die, and no one reports on that. Because the presumption is they will not be missed.

My point is more along the lines of what the media chooses to portray and how.

Homeless people are not considered 'people', they are considered filth. People and the media very often show much more attention, care, and monetary support for pets, wild animals, and victims of poverty or wars abroad than they do the homeless in their own town or country.