It's just the way they deliver news, they word it in a way that is very biased/warped.

Example: (Just recently read a few articles like this) Generic tabloid/news agency: "Drone Strikes target 3 ISIS bases 5 miles south of Raqqa.

American drone strikes confirmed the elimination of some regional threats in three terrorist camps south of Raqqa, Syria. Both Syria and Iraq have been the target of an anti-terrorist coalition, including Iranian, Russian, and American forces."

Fox News: "American pilots disintegrate multiple terrorist encampments

Skilled and veteran American pilots coordinated multiple drone strikes in the Middle East this past Saturday, ending the barbaric terrorist threat in that region. This comes at a time when Russian agents protect the interests of a mass murdering dictator, and Iranian agents press further into Syria, after months of being accused of manipulating Shia-militias in Iraq."

RT: "American imperialists ravage Syria, global community stays silent.

After close to a year of Russia's assistance to overcome the crisis in Syria, American imperialists and their regional allies continue to provoke chaos and disorder in an already fragile region by raining hellfire down on whatever targets they choose. With their allies too cowardly to outwardly challenge them, and other nations such as Iran pursuing their own ambitions, it falls to experienced Russian military officials to a guiding force in a region plagued with so much conflict----------much of which is directly or indirectly the result of American mistakes in the past."

It's just the wording, it's all very deliberate, and the subtlety of the wording varies between each article. Nothing said in each variation of the same topic is inherently false, but the ominous and framing of the latter two articles is done in a way to imprint a very particular impression on the reader.

(And these articles are just supposed to be reports. If it were editorials, fine, but these are just supposed to be the basic facts of an event.)