It's not even close.
That speculative text is just the expression of a cliché.

Such a distorted view of the reporting originates a lot in the distorted view of a conflict as shared by service members.
Reporters are civilians, and they try to cover the whole story more often than a soldier wants to think about the whole story. It's not surprising that soldiers feel that the reporting is off - it's off their view of the conflict.

Reporters are (wo)men and fallible, in fact my rule of thumb about average newspapers is "1/3 right, 1/3 correct but misses the point and 1/3 wrong".
A regional newspaper chief editor once confirmed to me that journalists are just all-round dilettantes.

But the fictional text above is not anywhere near representative. It's based on a cliché, not on reality.
A realistic fictional text would have included this:
- time
- location
- numbers
- first success indicators/reports
- expected casualty range (official and/or "experts" guesses)
- key statements of the press conference/release, probably a quote
- mention of the supreme commander of the operation by name and rank
- probably an improvised map
- at least one photo, for example of a sky full of combat aircraft
- mention of an impressively destructive bombardment that leaves little chance of survival
- some very despising words about the enemy (OK, maybe "fascists" or "Nazis" would have been despising enough)
- outlook on what the operation might cause in the medium term

Journalists write about environmental hazards of military actions/hardware when they've got no better stories.

They usually don't jump on the very first stories of civilian casualties and war crimes, but instead there's a threshold: If too much happens, they're fed up and begin to report about it, taking examples and emphasize these few examples (which then seems out of proportion to uniformed personnel, of course).
Foreign (neutral or unfriendly nations') press is of course a bit or drastically more unfriendly towards military operations (lower or no thresholds).