journalist

Court also acquits Dow Jones on the charge of dismissal over Selina Cheng’s leadership role with the Hong Kong Journalists Association.

A Hong Kong court has convicted Dow Jones for trying to deter a journalist from taking a union role, but also acquitted the publisher on the charge of dismissal over the role, in a case that raised concerns about media freedom in the city.

Selina Cheng, who was fired by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in July 2024, had accused the newspaper’s publisher Dow Jones of unlawfully terminating her employment over her role chairing the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) and of trying to prevent her from standing for a union position.

The court found the company guilty on Thursday of trying to prevent Cheng’s right to run for the union chairmanship.

However, the judge sided with Dow Jones’ argument that she was made redundant because of corporate restructuring, and not due to her role as HKJA chair.

The right to take part in a trade union is protected by Hong Kong’s labour laws. An employer found guilty on “prevent or deter” charges could be fined up to 100,000 Hong Kong dollars ($12,755).

“If reporters’ employment rights are not sufficiently safeguarded, or when their rights are violated and not enforced in law, then we can no longer work safely as reporters,” Cheng told reporters outside the court after the ruling.

The judge said the company’s requirement that Cheng seek prior permission to take a union role was an “unjustified deterrent” of her rights.

Dow Jones said it disagreed with the ruling and was evaluating next steps.

“The Wall Street Journal has a long and proud history as an employer in Hong Kong. Throughout that time, we have remained deeply respectful of its labour laws and supportive of our employees’ rights, while publishing excellent, impartial journalism about the region,” a spokesperson said.

Sentencing is expected to be handed down at a later date.

Cheng launched a private prosecution last year for illegal termination, after filing a complaint with the Labour Department that did not result in a prosecution.

Founded in 1968, the HKJA is Hong Kong’s longest-established journalists’ organisation and one of the last remaining groups advocating for media rights in the city.

Although Hong Kong was once known for its independent news outlets, media freedom has come under strain and many outlets have disbanded since Beijing imposed a 2020 national security law following sometimes violent pro-democracy protests, according to international rankings and HKJA surveys.

California lawmakers have approved a bill that seeks to throw a lifeline to the state’s struggling journalism organizations.

Assembly Bill 2222, which would create refundable tax credits for California local news organizations based on the number of journalists they employ, joins a litany of bills on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

The state Senate passed the bill on Sunday and the Assembly narrowly approved its amendments on Monday to send the bill to the governor’s desk, with some Republican lawmakers pulling their previous “yes” votes.

The approval comes just as the Legislature is set to adjourn its two-year session early this week.

The bill, introduced by Assemblymember Christopher M. Ward (D-San Diego) would work by assigning a “job retention credit” of $20,000 per journalist for up to five positions, and after that $15,000 for every additional journalist. Part-time positions would be awarded half-credits. It also stacks an additional $15,000 credit for each new hire, to incentivize expanding journalist head counts.

“This measure is a safety net for news outlets on the verge of closure,” said former state Sen. Steve Glazer, who is a proponent of the bill and during his Senate term pushed similar legislation.

Proponents may face an uphill battle persuading Newsom to sign the bill, which creates a unique revenue stream to pay for the program. Newsom typically spurns laws that make changes to the state budget after those fiscal discussions conclude in the first half of the calendar year.

AB 2222 represents the latest attempt by California lawmakers to bolster the news business, with governments globally discussing similar efforts. Canada implemented newsroom payroll tax credits in 2019 amounting to about $13,750 per journalist in an eligible newsroom.

AB 2222 would create the largest relief plan in the U.S. to date, with the state tax board estimating it would make more than $40 million available to the state’s newsrooms annually.

The California Taxpayers Assn. and groups representing business interests such as the California Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill because it raises taxes on employers.

The governor’s finance office issued an analysis opposing the bill for failing to outline a cap on tax credits and for seeking to subsidize existing jobs rather than encouraging the creation of more journalism jobs.

The bill is supported by the California News Publishers Assn., of which the Los Angeles Times is a member.

Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto bills.

The Federal Communications Commission under Trump has tried to target news outlets for spreading ‘fake’ news.

United States President Donald Trump says he will report a prominent NBC television journalist to the federal agency in charge of regulating broadcast news outlets for “rebuke or punishment”.

In a post on Truth Social on Sunday, Trump took issue with Kristen Welker’s characterisation of his endorsements of electoral candidates as having “mixed results” in the primaries leading up to November’s elections.

“How can anyone be allowed to say this, working for freely given public airwaves?” Trump wrote. He also posted, without any attribution of where he got the data, a chart showing 98 percent of the candidates he endorsed had won their elections.

“Because of this purposeful inaccuracy, she will be reported to the FCC,” the Federal Communications Commission, he said.

Welker hosted the 2020 presidential election debate between Trump and former President Joe Biden and currently hosts NBC’s weekly news programme Meet the Press.

‘Crooked networks’

In June, Welker had a one-on-one interview with Trump that ended in a heated exchange as she pressed the Republican president on continuing to claim the Democratic Party had cheated in the 2020 presidential election, in which Biden defeated Trump.

“Your elections are crooked, and you’re crooked, and Meet the Press is crooked and so is ABC and CBS and CNN. You’re one-sided crooked networks,” Trump said shortly before pulling off his microphone and leaving the interview.

Trump, who has long had a tumultuous relationship with those US television news networks, has increasingly threatened to use the FCC to target what he says is false news.

This month, ABC News’s owner, Disney, sued the FCC, saying the agency was conducting an early licence review of eight of the network’s stations, a move that it said was “retaliation” against it. ABC said the FCC was seeking “a media industry too fearful of official reprisal to report the news freely”.

The review followed a row between the network and the FCC after Trump and his wife Melania called on it to fire late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke he had made about her.

President Trump has also filed several multibillion-dollar civil lawsuits against news outlets alleging defamation. Last year, he filed a $10bn lawsuit against the BBC, which he said unfairly edited a clip of him speaking just before his supporters stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, to make it seem like he had called for violence.

Trump sued The New York Times for $15bn and The Wall Street Journal for $10bn, alleging defamation over reporting on issues such as how he amassed his wealth and his relationship to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. A judge threw out the case against The Wall Street Journal. Trump refiled the case against The New York Times after a judge dismissed the first complaint against the newspaper last year.

Attempts to compel reporters to reveal sources

The warning from Trump also comes as his administration has taken the rare step of using the courts to try to pressure journalists into giving up confidential sources for stories that have pointed out wrongdoing.

This month, The New York Times said agents from the FBI showed up at the home of one of its reporters in February to deliver a subpoena seeking cooperation for an investigation into a story that revealed how a secret US Navy SEALs mission in North Korea had ended up with them opening fire on a North Korean boat.

In July, the US Department of Justice also tried to subpoena three other journalists from the newspaper after they reported on security concerns with the president’s new Air Force One jet. Investigators were seeking phone records of the journalists but withdrew the requests after a federal judge upbraided the tactic in court, saying they were violating the First Amendment, a provision in the US Constitution that protects freedom of the press.

Reporters at The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post have also been subpoenaed in recent months for national security coverage, including for reporting on internal Pentagon warnings about the US-Israel war on Iran.

News media freedom groups like the Committee to Protect Journalists have criticised the Trump administration for targeting critical media. In April, the group Reporters Sans Frontieres, or Reporters Without Borders, said the US has fallen to a “historic low” in its annual global press freedom rankings, dropping from 57th in the world to 64th.

A new plan by California lawmakers to help fund the state’s struggling journalism organizations could advance in the coming days but faces an uncertain future.

Assembly Bill 2222 would create refundable tax credits for California local news organizations based on the number of journalists they employ, which in practice would provide direct cash infusions to participating newsrooms.

The bill, introduced by Assemblymember Christopher M. Ward (D-San Diego) earlier this year, is the latest effort to provide a lifeline for the news industry. There has been much talk both in California and globally about government support for journalism. But this is potentially the largest relief plan to date, with the state tax board estimating it would make more than $40 million available to newsrooms annually. The bill passed the Assembly and needs approval from the Senate to reach the governor’s desk.

Publishers, journalists and their unions have long argued that online search and social media platforms are harming the journalism business by eating up advertising revenue while publishing content they don’t pay for.

Previous attempts by California lawmakers focused on forcing Google, Meta and other platforms to pay their share, but this proposal has a unique solution to funding the program.

Ward described the bill as an important step in keeping a strong press corps in California, which he said is more important than ever in an era of digital misinformation.

Ward said the bill would “strengthen democracy” and “keep the lights on” in newsrooms. He cited President Trump’s own attacks on the press. “We thought, ‘What more can California do to help support them?’” he said.

Trump’s efforts to strip public radio and television stations of federal funds and the steep downward profit-losing trend for commercial newsrooms has meant, Ward said, that newsrooms have severely scaled back operations. Rural areas in particular have altogether lost their news sources, with many forced to shut down.

The amount of advertising to local newspapers declined by 82% — a $40 billion drop — since 2000, Pew Research Center said in 2023. And almost 40% of all local U.S. newspapers have vanished, according to an annual report on the state of local news put out by Northwestern University’s Medill journalism school.

A report last year by data firm Muck Rack and Rebuild Local News, a nonprofit advocating for government help for the journalism sector that is sponsoring AB 2222, estimates there has been a 75% decline in the number of local journalists per 100,000 of population in the U.S. since 2002.

The law, if approved, would work by assigning a “job retention credit” of $20,000 per journalist for up to five positions, and after that $15,000 for every additional journalist. Part-time positions would be awarded half-credits. It also stacks an additional $15,000 credit for each new hire, to incentivize expanding journalist headcounts.

To pay for the credits, the bill would amend California’s tax code to align with a little-discussed component of Trump’s “Big Beautiful” tax bill that expanded taxes on some companies by eliminating a deduction for executive salaries of over $1 million annually.

It is common practice for the state to consider aligning its tax code with the federal structure to make filing taxes easier and administering them more cheaply. But California has not yet sought to adopt this federal tax expansion.

As a tax measure, AB 2222 requires approval from a supermajority two-thirds of the Legislature, no easy task in an election year and with a fast-approaching deadline for lawmakers to approve bills Monday, which marks the end of this year’s legislative session.

The California Taxpayers Assn. and groups representing business interests such as the California Chamber of Commerce oppose the bill because it raises taxes on employers that they argue already face billions of dollars in new taxes. They contend that the higher costs will be passed along to consumers, and they also take issue with funneling a new funding source to a niche industry without going through the budget process.

“Financing an industry-specific tax credit with a tax increase on an unrelated group of taxpayers is an unsound way to budget,” the taxpayers association wrote in its letter of opposition.

Republican lawmaker Carl DeMaio of San Diego has vocalized his opposition in discussions of the bill, criticizing the idea of providing funding to outlets that make political endorsements. DeMaio did not provide a response to a request for comment about his current position on the proposal.

The bill’s backers are hopeful it will wriggle through this legislative session and land on the governor’s desk.

Yet they are not sure whether Newsom will sign it. In the past, Newsom has been reluctant to greenlight laws that tinker with the state budget after those fiscal discussions conclude in the first half of the calendar year.

The governor’s finance office issued an analysis opposing the bill for not including a cap on the tax credits, thus creating “unlimited fiscal liability to the state,” and argued the bill mainly subsidizes existing activity rather than encouraging the creation of new jobs.

An analysis by the state’s Franchise Tax Board — the agency that levies personal and corporate income taxes — found that the funding stream would bring $29 million in new revenue to the state’s general fund in the 2026-27 year and $58 million the following year.

Meanwhile, the estimated amount of the tax credit for local news organizations would be $19 million the first year and $43 million the second year. After accounting for the tax credits as well as the administrative costs, the budget would still see a net increase of $10 million and $15 million in those years.

“It’s fully paid for,” said former state senator Steven Glazer, who is a passionate proponent of the bill. Glazer during his Senate term pushed similar legislation that was ultimately shelved in a deal with tech giants.

In recent years California lawmakers have also weighed tax credits for Hollywood jobs. In June, lawmakers approved a major expansion of the funding allocated each year to the state’s film and television tax credit program, moving to raise that cap to $750 million from $330 million. The legislature is also considering a bill that would provide some $100 million in annual funding to post-production work.

The newsroom bill is designed specifically so as to be as neutral as possible on the medium — whether print newspapers, digital news sites, ethnic media or television broadcasters — as well as the business model of the newsroom — whether for-profit, nonprofit or publicly subsidized. The point is to prevent the government from having strong influence or being able to pick winners and losers in the industry, said Matt Pearce, a director of policy for bill sponsor Rebuild Local News, which successfully backed similar legislation in Illinois.

“You have practically the whole range of the local news world represented in some form. Big, little, independent,” Pearce said.

Pearce formerly worked as a reporter at The Times, and served as president of Media Guild of the West, the union that represents Times journalists.

The bill is also supported by the California News Publishers Assn., of which the Los Angeles Times is a member.

A new LAPD report released Tuesday blamed poor planning and coordination for issues with the department’s response to protests that erupted on city streets last summer in opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

But apart from identifying those problems, the report concluded that police officers performed well in the face of “unprecedented” unrest that sometimes devolved into violence and vandalism.

Missing from the 62-page report — at least in the view of some longtime department observers — was any reflection about officers’ use of less-lethal weapons that left hundreds of people injured and drew strong condemnations from human rights groups.

The report largely blamed protesters for instigating violence and injuring officers, saying “agitators” intent on taking advantage of the disorder made it impossible to avoid using force.

The report said the LAPD was not prepared to deal with the protective equipment and “improvised weaponry” employed by some protesters, including people with oven mitts who picked up and lobbed tear gas canisters back in the direction of officers and others who used leaf blowers to redirect the gas.

During the department’s presentation of the report, one police commissioner, Jeff Skobin, pointed out that demonstrators and journalists who spoke at the meeting felt as though their perspectives weren’t reflected in the report whatsoever. He suggested that LAPD officials consider reaching out to journalists or press organizations as the department reevaluates its media policy.

Commission President Rasha Gerges Shields said the department could have examined whether reforms that were called for in 2020 had been implemented — and areas where the department still needed to improve.

“I just want to make sure that this isn’t just the end-all, be-all of this conversation,” she said.

In response, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell said the report had considered past lessons learned, but the “unprecedented” nature of the protests justified the department’s actions.

“The level of violence — I have been doing this for 45 years, I have not seen that here or anywhere else in the country,” he said, noting that nearly 50 officers were injured.

The report said officers were targeted with rocks, bottles, commercial-grade fireworks and Molotov cocktails. Timely communication was a concern at times, the report said, with the department lacking a necessary number of radio wave frequencies.

When less-lethal weapons proved ineffective, the department deployed tear gas on two occasions, June 8 and 14, to disperse “violent groups” and restore order. It was the first time the department had used the measure since at least the 1970s. The decision to use gas “reflected the extreme conditions faced at the height of the unrest,” the report said. The report doesn’t specify who authorized the deployment of the gas.

But the gas also created tactical challenges, since many patrol and Metropolitan Division officers lacked protective masks, increasing their risk of exposure. The report said the chemical agents were “the only viable option to reestablish control.”

In just two weeks of protests, the report said, the department spent $17.47 million in personnel costs, including $12.14 million for overtime. Ultimately, the report concluded, the department “contained the unrest” without any loss of life or “major breaches of critical infrastructure.”

Some critics said the report failed to answer basic questions, such as how many less-lethal rounds were fired or how many officers were disciplined for misconduct.

Like past after-action reports, the review was hyper-focused on the threats faced by officers, critics said. But, they noted, it had little to say about how officers’ use of less-lethal weapons — sometimes in clear violation of the department’s own policies — that were widely documented documented on social media and in news accounts.

“If the department can’t even recognize the possibility that they might have a problem with how they police protests, after last summer, how can anyone expect them to do anything differently next time?” said Peter Bibring, a civil rights attorney who previously served as director of police practices at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

According to the city attorney’s office, more than 120 claims for damages have been filed against the city in connection to police actions during pro-immigration protests as of April. The city is still facing lawsuits stemming from the 2020 protests over the police killing of George Floyd. The latest spate of civil actions could tie the city up in costly litigation for years to come.

At Tuesday’s commission meeting, the 45-minute public comment period was extended to accommodate dozens of speakers, many of whom criticized the report for whitewashing what they described as the department’s heavy-handed response to the protests.

Despite years of costly lawsuits, oversight measures and promises by leaders to rein in indiscriminate use of force during protests, officers were shown on video last year trampling demonstrators on horseback and aiming so-called less-lethal launchers at people’s heads in a violation of department policy, speakers said. None of that, observers said, was mentioned in the report.

Others argued that the report seems to cast members of the media as nuisances to be dealt with, while ignoring instances in which journalists were targeted by law enforcement.

“It’s an insult,” said Nick Stern, a British news photographer who is suing the Los Angeles County after being struck by sheriff’s deputies while covering a protest in Paramount. “Journalists only show up as logistical problems.”

Another speaker noted the inflammatory language used in the report seemed to justify the aggressive tactics by describing protesters as operating in “cells,” likening them to Al-Qaeda.

Lt. Joseph Fransen, the study’s chief author, told the Commission that he took inspiration from the federal government’s 9/11 after-action report, which dissected mistakes leading up to the terrorist attack.

“These aren’t necessarily points of failure, these are just lessons to be learned in the future,” Fransen said of his report.

Officials have promised thorough investigations of all uses of force. The department limited its use of the launchers after a federal judge issued an injunction in January, but has deployed other types of crowd control weapons in subsequent protests. The judge ruled that officers have repeatedly violated previous court orders that allow the weapon to be used only to subdue protesters who pose a threat of violence.

The report found that, on several nights, the LAPD didn’t have enough personnel to process and transport all the people who were arrested. Between June 7-16, 2025, the department made 435 protest-related arrests, including 182 on June 10 alone. Three out of every four arrest was for unlawful assembly, while 16 arrests were made for violent crimes, including assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer or attempted murder of a police officer. Most people were released on citation. Four-fifths of those arrested came from the county, while others traveled from surrounding counties or outside the state.