Conflict itself is a news value. Something may be news precisely because there is conflict, and exponentially so if that conflict affects a news organizations' readers via proximity or other news values. Where no conflict can be found, it can be (and often is) generated via balance. Science writing is full of it, same with education writing and politics. Find one source that says one thing, another source that says the opposite and you've generated built-in conflict. If the conflict is sensational enough, your editor puts it on the front page.
This is a real problem in journalism. Journalists are specifically trained as generalists. There's a culture of avoiding becoming experts in their beats, instead they strive for access to experts. The argument is that by not being an expert, one can write for a general audience more clearly. Just follow the formula.
Anyway, news is narrative. That is the chosen format. Compelling narratives do better at selling news than dry factual reporting.
There's a reason why, for example, when newspapers do polls that are outliers from the consensus they blare that information as loudly as possible. It's not because they honestly think they're right, it's that they've spent upwards of $20,000 conducting the survey and now they're going to get their worth out of it.
The problems you describe are purely a result of editorial policies that can be changed. There is no natural law that dictates that access or narrative (editorialization) be a fundamental aspect of news publishing. Season 5 of "The Wire" goes into this with some detail.
