You forget Hanlon's razor:

  Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

This kind of reporting does not take place because the reporter is malicious. It takes place because the reporter thinks his public will consider it interesting and because he thinks his public should be informed about it. Which can be considered stupid, because it is really not that interesting, because it may have adverse effects by strenghtening or causing prejudices through overly broad generalizations and because it may simply be spreading falsehoods.

(In which I do not intend to take a stance on the veracity of the claim.)