I agree with your observation, but I wonder if I could amplify.
The fact is that newspapers (at least, the more sensational of them, which these days means nearly all of them) thrive on controversy. Where no controversy exists, they invent one. But they don't do that to push their own point of view. Their only interest is in stirring things up in order to engage the reader.
So, if you see a headline like "Fury over plans to cut school crossing patrol", it's not because the journalist or editors don't want the patrol to be cut. They really don't give a cuss. Nor is it because there is some pressure group out their that is genuinely furious over the cuts. It simply that the newspaper knows that the best way to attract readers is to engage them emotionally, and one way to do that is to make them angry.
I'm a former journalist myself, and I know how these things work. I've worked with editors who won't accept a story unless you make it controversial, however non-controversial the subject matter. So you edit the article, peppering in words like "anger", "outright opposition", "record-breaking", "make or break", "extreme right/left wing", and so on.
Unfortunately, the same attitude is now spreading to other media, including broadcast news and many news-based websites. Getting "just the facts, ma'am" is sometimes exceedingly difficult.