Passage Summary: An editor defends a gossip-heavy news story by saying it was true and a lot of people wanted to see it.

Conclusion: The television station's coverage of the politician's nephew's personal problems was good journalism.

Reasoning: The report was factually accurate and it attracted a much larger audience than usual due to public curiosity.

Analysis: The argument moves from two factual premises—accuracy and high viewership—to a value judgment of 'good journalism.' To justify this, we need a principle that bridges that gap, essentially stating that if a story is true and popular, it is professionally sound. Look for an answer that validates the use of public curiosity as a legitimate metric for journalistic quality. Without such a principle, the critic's objection that the story was an invasion of privacy remains unaddressed.