Hong Kong is back in the international headlines. But this time, the national security legislation for the city is attracting worldwide attention. But is the media doing a fair job of presenting the whole story?

China's top legislature, the National People's Congress, passed the draft decision on the national security legislation for Hong Kong on Thursday. It aims to establish and improve the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) to safeguard national security, to change the long-term "defenselessness" of the city in this regard. But when you look at many headlines in the international media, fear is the focus. The bigger picture, the reasons why such a law is needed, and the voices who support the new legislation are missing from many reports.

For example, a May 21 headline from The Guardian reads, "'This is the end of Hong Kong': China pushes controversial security laws" and in the subhead, "Proposed legislation would effectively end one country, two systems status, say critics." Voices from critics not only dominate the headline but also the majority of the article. Among quotes from a total of ten different sources, nine are against the bill, there is just one voice from China's central government, a spokesperson from the National People's Congress who's quoted as saying: "National security is the bedrock underpinning the stability of the country."

What the article fails to point out also is that the decision only targets a narrow category of acts and behaviors that jeopardize national security. And it's clearly written in the approved decision to uphold and improve the "One Country, Two Systems" principle. But this viewpoint is completely missing in the article. Some media reports show that there are a number of voices that do support the legislation. These people don't see the legislation as the end of Hong Kong, but as the beginning of a new hopeful chapter for the city. And these opinions come from many people who have lived in the city for many years, Chinese and foreigners alike. They are not given a voice in this Guardian article. Where is due impartiality here?

In a May 22 Bloomberg article, the headline reads, "China Dares Trump to Hit Back With Hong Kong Power Grab."The article says, "On the first day of China's biggest political event of the year, Xi Jinping sent a clear message to Donald Trump: We're going to do what we want in Hong Kong, and we're not scared of the consequences." Well, that's imaginative and rather dramatic, but unfortunately misses the point. What China does is for China's legitimate good, not to play into anybody else's intrigue. And, although China takes President Trump very seriously, the legislation was not designed with him in mind. He's got enough to deal with as it is.

Nevertheless, the article lists a whole array of ways U.S. President Donald Trump might retaliate if the bill is passed rather than how a national security law could help keep Hong Kong safe and prevent protests from becoming riots. It doesn't mention the violent protests from last year, or the fact that many businesses were vandalized, Hong Kong's economy suffered, and most importantly, people – protesters and police alike – were intimidated and injured. This isn't about geopolitics; it's about keeping people safe. The article stands out as an example of the type of navel-gazing that's so prolific in many Western media outlets when they cover stories about China. For many in Western countries, the only way to understand issues in China is through the prism of their own construction.

It's a sensitive issue, yes. But it's also important to understand the background and wider context to the issue, rather than just zero in on one side of the story.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)