The title doesn’t say the newspaper engaged in the raid. There are other agencies that could raid a police chief’s home. It would be reasonable to assume some agency like the FBI conducted the raid based on the same information that prompted the investigation. That’s not actually the case here, but I think that is a way more plausible reading of the sentence.

not a single person here agrees with you. The title didnt say who performed the raiding. A police chief could be raided by the FBI.

It doesn’t say the paper was the entity engaged in the raid. If I didn’t know the broader context, I would assume that sentence meant “A newspaper was investigating a police chief at the time the police chief’s home was raided by another law enforcement agency”. That seems way more likely than a newspaper being referred to as “him”.

Because the title is changed now, but was something else half an hour ago.

This is a community of people whose career revolves around precise language.

You knew because you're intelligent and were able to piece things together. Many in society are not so fortunate for one reason of another and so it's important to be precise.