To preface; my research mostly covers the press in WW1 but I feel as this is a question of perception the press is perfect for explaining it. My sources are all in Norwegian and the perspectives I have examined are all from a neutral country. I have also only really researched the early-war period, but the attitudes that were to be prevalent by the end of the war began to take hold as early as 1914, though it's an incredibly complex issue to tackle so view this as just one perspective on the matter and not necessarily the answer.

When war broke out between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, diplomatic focus was seemingly centred around keeping it a regional conflict.

Austria-Hungary received a notice of complete support from Germany in case Russia would militarily interfere as Austria-Hungary sought (at least on paper) retribution for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This was viewed by the Norwegian press as an escalation of the conflict, as it threatened drag two great powers into the conflict, completely changing the scope of the war. Russia began mobilising for war against Austria-Hungary, which would then require Germany to lend its military support for Austria. Germany warned the Russian Empire that further mobilisation would mean war. One day later, Germany declared war on Russia.

German generals had long been aware of the fact that any war with Russia or France would potentially involve both, and that such a war was unwinnable with Germany's natural resources and manpower, at least if it was a protracted one. From these conditions the Schlieffen Plan way of thinking was born. The central premise was to invade through neutral Belgium in order to circumvent French defenses so as to bring about a quick victory in the west, which would free up troops for the east. On August 2, Germany declares war on Luxembourg, on August 3 they declare war on France. On August 4 they invade Belgium. The same day the United Kingdom declares war on Germany for violating their guarantee of Belgian independence.

As you can see, if you lived through the period and received daily telegrams and newspapers updating you on the war's developments as they happened, it would be difficult not to blame Germany for the world war. As propaganda efforts began to pick up speed, this perspective would become muddied as the Germans (among many others) began to embellish the narrative. One such narrative was of nations like the United Kingdom having "Stabbed the white race in the back" by siding with the Russians.

The neutral press in Norway was restricted in many ways, and printed propaganda from both sides. A state-run effort to maintain neutrality in the press when speaking about war and warring nations curtailed a lot of potential criticism for nations like Germany. Even so articles that spoke of German declarations of war were suffused with a feeling of dread, and although the press viewed it as a larger tragedy affecting all nations, it was never unclear who threw the first stone.

So essentially, it becomes far easier to blame Germany as they are the ones who on paper escalated the conflict to the point of becoming a world war.

My sources are sadly all in Norwegian:

Flo, I., et al. 2010. Norsk Presses Historie 1660-2010 bind 4: Norske aviser fra A til Å.

Berg. A. 1995. Norsk Utenrikspolitikks Historie bind 2: Norge på egen hånd 1905-1920

Løkken, M. I skyggen av første verdenskrig. 20-73 (Masters thesis, Universitetet i Tromsø, 2015)

Ottosen, R., et al. 2010. Norsk Presses Historie 1660-2010 bind 2: Parti, presse og publikum 1880-1945.