I normally understand "alarmist" to imply "unjustified/exaggerated", whereas I don't think simply calling this situation a "nightmare" falls into that category. I would call it click-bait, since it does nothing to communicate the topic, though I probably wouldn't even bother leveling that criticism out loud in a case where I feel like the gravity of the topic overshadows it and the topic is handled well in the body of the article.
This may be anecdotal, but the homeless situation + shelter-in-place combination IS a nightmare. I live it every day and I cannot describe it any other way. I didn't mind it when I spent 14 hours a day out of the house working, but I am now living, breathing, and hearing it 24 hours a day and it is a nightmare. And it's not just that they are homeless, it's all the criminal activity that radiates from the encampments right below my window.
Not sure if this is the case here, but apparently writers often don't choose their own headlines.
Editors write headlines. And as someone who has been published, sometimes they write your stories too.
That is correct. Writers will usually write one (or may use one an editor provided when they gave the assignment), but typically an editor will decide on the final headline/subhead/etc.
At both TIME and NatGeo, it wasn’t uncommon to focus group different headlines and covers before going to print.