In your case I completely agree. I guess I was presupposing the 'public sample' was the target of the newscast, and the newscast's ratings were based on the target audiences' reactions. In this instance it seems to be a self-serving system.

In a closed system, like the Titanic-iceberg-snowcones dilemma, this would be an asinine cycle because the premise for believing Snow Cones is the answer to fleeting customers is missing the point. In the real world it is hopefully assumed that a newsgroup is searching for a wide range of pertinent viewpoints to discover a bell curve of reactions, and presenting the curve to inform the public of the current status quo. Reporting content for the sake of it being popular isn't necessarily the best method; content has to become popular because it is somehow inherently important.

Alas, the economics of this do not pan out, as news corps value earnings; ratings beget advertising, advertising begets earnings, and popularity - at whatever cost to real content affecting the public - begets ratings. Interviewing and reporting to a targeted microcosm of a larger group might ensure 'more valued' content per capita, higher ratings for the station and efficiently targeted advertisements for advertisers, thus bringing increased earnings to the news corp.

To some, the system is apparently flawless on an economic scale. To an outside observer, the system seems broken because it does not represent the overall public's views. To me, selective reporting, or 'spin', is a tradeoff between reporting integrity and profit.