I want to know that this type of titles engineering, or censorship (of
West bad news or good news of its enemies) is due to the
pressure/policy/control of their governments, or do the owners of the
newspapers do it by their own decision?
Governments in "Western" countries exert very little pressure/policy/control over the news media, although there is some variation from country to country, with less government control in some countries, and more in some other "Western" countries.
For example, there is more government influence over the media in the U.K. than in the U.S.
There are also rare "gag orders" pertaining usually to pending court cases and criminal investigations, aimed at preventing the news media from tainting or impairing those activities, and pertaining to disclosures by "embedded" reporters of national security information that could have tactical value to military adversaries of the country that the reporters are embedded with like the exact location of military units or the names of military personnel (that could be used to target those military units).
Also, while it is not actually true government control, there are certain widely held norms among news organizations in many countries about what should not be reported.
For example, many news organizations in the U.S. have a policy of not reporting the names of sexual assault victims without their consent.
But, there is very little government control over the reporting of the kind of international affairs and military activity news stories that were used as examples in the question.
Prepublication review of news stories by government officials, for example, is strictly forbidden by U.S. law.
But if they do it by their own
decision, then why are they all in sync with each other? i.e. all of
them publish a good news in very positive way and all of them decide
to not publish anything about a bad (in view of the west) event.
Most mainstream news media sources rely for a significant share of their news reports on third-party reporting through consortia of news reporting companies such as the Associated Press and United Press International, which consolidate stories from member news outlets and release them to all members of the consortium through a news wire service. One or two or three reporters in the locality where the breaking news is happening may be responsible for 95% of what gets reported through the intermediary medium of news wires, all over the world.
For example, when I was a radio news reporter in college, we got about 95% of our stories from our news wire service (which we sometimes rewrote) and about 5% of our stories from original reporting of our own. I know, from several friends who are professional journalists, and from a stint in my adult life as a professional journalist myself, that this is little different in professional news organizations.
Another source of similarity between news reports that are not literally the same story distributed via a news wire service is the somewhat lazy practice sometimes known as "press release journalism."
In this practice, a news organization subscribes to all press releases from a variety of sources, such as selected government agencies, universities and academic journals, PR agencies, and big businesses. Many news organizations subscribe to the same sources of press releases.
Then, reporters and editors at the news organization pick and choose which press releases they see each day will be made into news stories (often utilizing similar standards about what is most newsworthy driven by the culture of the news reporting industry). Once they do this, they cut and paste the press release, with minimal contributions of their own, into a news article which they release.
Like the college radio station's news department that I worked at in college, most professional news departments get most of their stories predominantly from news wire services and press releases, and engage in more labor intensive direct reporting activity in only a small percentage of their stories.
Moreover, even then, a significant proportion of direct news reporting involves attending press conferences held by the same kinds of sources that issue press releases, listening to the presentations given and the answers to the questions asked by other reporters, and asking one or two questions of their own, and then writing up what was said at the press conference, again, influenced by a common set of news reporter cultural norms about what statements made at a press conference are most newsworthy.
Much of the rest of the journalist additions to what happens in a press conference comes from the same publicly available background information sources like almanacs, atlases, Wikipedia, and quick Google and social media searches.
An overlapping reason for the similarity of the reports of different news organizations is that often, there are not many sources that are easily available to foreign affairs and military activity new reporters. Often, the public affairs officer or public relations officer or press secretary at one of a very small number of government agencies will be the only easily available source of information about what is going on in military conflict.
The U.S. government doesn't directly regulate what news outlets can say in their stories about the military, but the U.S. military does maintain message discipline, allowing only a small number of people to talk to the press. And the people in the military who are allowed to talk to the press are very attuned to telling their organization's side of the story in a manner that both comes across as credible, and supports their organization's military goals. When government agencies are the only sources available to news organizations that have newsworthy, real time access to information about rapidly unfolding events that the press wants to know about, they have a great capacity to omit information that they don't want released for reasons that are not always honorable ones, and to spin the information that they do disclose in a manner that is consistent with their own agenda.
Putting a reporter on a boat in the Red Sea or the Persian Gulf, or on the ground in Yemen or Gaza, is extremely expensive, very dangerous, hard to maintain reliable communications with, and requires specialist journalists with foreign language and other skills. But, this still does not guarantee that the reporter will be in the right place at the right time to see the newsworthy things that are happening at any given time, because the places where newsworthy things can happen are big, and the reporter can only be in one small corner of those places at once.
Networks of informants can make an on the scene reporting doing independent direct reporting more efficient and more likely to see newsworthy events, but these networks are also difficult and expensive to develop and maintain, although social media can reduced this cost somewhat when used skillfully.
Also, often, the most newsworthy information is only available from places like the bridges of warships or the semi-private meetings of politicians, where members of the general public can't go without the advanced permission of the people who are being reported upon. And, only a limited number of journalists can be in these places personally, with the other journalists forced to rely on the reporting of the journalists who are there.
The bottom line is that a lot of the similarity in news reports from multiple new media outlets comes not from any grand conspiracy or organized effort to control what is said on the editorial side. Instead, it comes from efforts to gather news in a cost effective way and the logistical realities that pose barriers to truly independent direct reporting.
The reports of a news organization like al-Jazeera differ from those of Western mainstream media sources, mostly because their costs of access to different kinds of sources and different press conferences from official sources is not the same as those of Western sources. Therefore, each respective news organization reports the information it has the easiest time obtaining. The differences aren't primarily due to the reporters or their editors having different "agendas" although editors in each case do have to consider the worldviews and priorities of their primary paying audiences.
All of this said, your perception that:
all of them publish a good news in very positive way and all of them
decide to not publish anything about a bad (in view of the west)
is simply not true and is a result of your skewed perception of news reporting.
Western journalist love to publish scathing indictments of and bad news about the West and of authorities, and will do so any chance they get, and prefer "bad news" to "good news". This is because when they can get it, it is much more interesting to their readership and increases their readership. If they are too pro-government, their articles start to sound like propaganda and journalists and their editors make a deliberate effort to avoid that kind of reporting to the extent that they can do so. Stories that challenge the powers that be increase a news outlet's credibility. Those are the stories that earn Pulitzer Prizes.
This said, the world view and understandings about how the world works of Western reporters and their audiences and of audiences, for example, in the Middle East, are different, as are the facts that are most important to different audiences.
Western audiences, for example, have a predisposition to give Israeli sources and pro-Israeli perspectives the benefit of the doubt, while Arab audiences tend to assume ill-intent and malice on the part of Israelis in the absence of strong, direct evidence to the contrary. This is in part because Western audiences often have many people who have had positive interactions with Israel and Israelis personally or know someone who has, while Arab audiences often have many people who have had negative interactions with Israel and Israelis personally or know someone who has.
Arab audiences, similarly, are much more receptive to conspiracy theories and to assumptions about how organizations and societies work that attribute lots of activity to corruption and ulterior motives, while Western audiences are much more prone to look to error and incompetence and coincidence as explanations for why things happen before considering corruption, or malice, or conspiracies.
To some extent, this is also a product of the respective life experiences of members of the different audiences. Western governments aren't always competent and make mistakes, but tend to not be deeply corrupt or controlled by malicious conspirators. Government in the Middle East, in contrast, tend to be extremely corrupt, ridden with nepotism, illuminated by undisclosed kinship and clan and sect ties, and prone to thinly veiled malicious conduct.
Arab audiences, as a result, make inaccurate projections about what is likely going on in the actions and statements of Western governments, while Western audiences probably underestimate the extent to which statements by Middle Eastern political actors are driven by corruption and are insincere.
News organizations, in turn, try to write and spin their stories in ways that make sense in the context of the worldviews of their typical audience members, because that is the best way for them to maximize their audiences.
