The only explanation I can think of is that the media is hoping to make it into a big story by sparking riots and murder in retaliation. But I'm not satisfied with that explanation, because it's usually dumb to assume those who disagree with you on a contentious issue are only disagreeing because they're intentionally being evil. I doubt reporters and editors are sitting around cackling over how they're going to get people killed so they can cover the deaths.
So what's a more reasonable explanation?
I'll note the obvious comparison to the fake story that ran a few years ago claiming the US Military was flushing the Koran down the toilet as a method of interrogation. That story sparked riots in which several people were killed, and then was later determined to be completely false. But that's not the same, because a matter of official military policy is obviously more newsworthy that some random idiot being an idiot. Also that was a situation where the media was acting out of incompetence and failing to fact-check a story that fit their preconceived narrative, rather than actual malice. Not that that makes any difference to the people who were killed due to the fake story. But an explanation that involved incompetent people being incompetent is far more plausible than one that involves a bunch of people chortling over their plans to be evil.