...It's completely manufactured, but the goal isn't to inform their readers/viewers, it's to advocate for one side of an issue via manufactured personalization. They can run articles from scientists all day to try and persuade, but it's easier to elevate this guy and pretend a non-story is a story in order to put a face on it. This is just one of the ridiculous and transparent attempts at it.
It's something to keep in mind while consuming news and their little bag of tricks in how to manipulate the public.
In this case, it's to (not so) subtly point out the insanity of one "side" of the argument. By personalizing a single story, they point out that you too, kid who has certifiably insane parents, can right the wrongs they have done to you when you come of age.
News has always been subjective. To some people, this is more important than what Trump did today or what Brexit happenings are going down. Some people prefer to read about celebrities. To each their own.
However, as another poster pointed out, if your goal is to criticize the story by bringing attention to how much of a non-story it is, then congrats, you just made it a story. By getting the eyeballs of potentially hundreds more readers, you've just spread the story more effectively than the news outlet(s) could on their own.
Finally, a question. What is manufactured personalization? This is an anecdote of one human being. The news outlets didn't manufacture it - this really happened. They spread the story, but unless you're suggesting they put the idea in the kid's head and incentivized him to do it, that's just called reporting.