Not all of the articles are straight-up factually incorrect like the above one. Gizmodo's article at least properly references national forests instead of parks in the title, and (albeit buried deep in the article) includes the disclaimer about it being a nonbinding budget amendment. However, I expect that 90%+ of the people who see even that article are going to come away with an incorrect impression of what occurred, and that's not a stunning example of good journalistic ethics, to put it mildly.
That said, I completely agree with the authors of the above articles about this being a very bad sign, even if it isn't yet legally binding. Although the protected national parks are more well-known, some of the most beautiful and impressive places in the country lies in the forests and wilderness areas, including pretty much every trail or peak I've ever hiked. If a law like what's mentioned above does get passed and forests start being sold, I will be in the first wave of monkeywrenchers out there to stop it, but that hasn't happened yet and it's misleading to make people think that it has.