China's top legislature on Tuesday unanimously adopted the new law on safeguarding national security in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Chinese President Xi Jinping signed a presidential order to promulgate the law, which went into effect on June 30 at 11 p.m..

With 66 articles in six chapters, the law defines four categories of offences endangering national security, secession, subversion, terrorist activities, and collusion with a foreign country or external elements to endanger national security, and their corresponding penalties, the highest being life imprisonment.

The law has been welcomed by many in Hong Kong who see it as a turning point for the city, which has been gripped by protests – some of which turned violent – over the last year.

HKSAR Chief Executive Carrie Lam said in a statement: "I am confident that after the implementation of the national security law, the social unrest which has troubled Hong Kong people for nearly a year will be eased and stability will be restored, thereby enabling Hong Kong to start anew, focus on economic development, and improve people's livelihood."

In May, 2.9 million local residents signed a petition to support the law. And on July 2, an online petition signed by 1.65 million local residents was presented at the doorstep of the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong against U.S. interference in Chinese and Hong Kong affairs.

However, concerns and criticisms over the new law have been abundant inside and outside Hong Kong.

The Hong Kong Bar Association said it is "gravely concerned" with both the contents of the law and the manner of its introduction.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the new law was "an affront to all nations" and that Washington was taking steps to end special permissions for the Chinese region. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: "We are, obviously, deeply concerned about the decisions to pass the national security law in Beijing as it affects Hong Kong.”

Two sides of the story, with many nuances in between. But when you read many of the articles about it, the voices of critics far outweigh voices of support. Some big points are missing. And some articles seem to have already chosen a side in the matter without giving readers a complete understanding of the issue.

For example, The New York Times on June 28, before the law took effect, published the article "China's New National Security Law Looms Over Hong Kong." The article is broken down into four main points: A law to curb opposition in Hong Kong, Beijing imposes security agencies, Many residents fear the law, and Western governments object. All four points are negative. There isn't one section dedicated to the background context or the reasons why some people do want some kind of action taken to prevent protests from spinning out of control, among other things.

In an article published by the Guardian on June 30, the headline reads: "Controversial Hong Kong national security law comes into effect." The first paragraph says: "Beijing has imposed a controversial national security law on Hong Kong, giving the Chinese government sweeping powers over the semi-autonomous territory in a move critics say will crush its freedoms."

But anybody who has read about the new law would understand that it only targets specific offenses under the four categories that affect national security. And only under complex cases, such as the involvement of a foreign country or external elements, will the central government exercise jurisdiction through an office in HK. Does that constitute "sweeping power" over the city?

The article also features statements from an echo chamber of critics: Quotes from legal scholars, academics, and activists, all of whom oppose the new law and are usually China critics to begin with.  Absent are the voices of residents who support the law, or those whose lives have been negatively impacted by the violence.

The point here is not to call out critical coverage of China. People are entitled to their opinions, of course. But it is important to call out imbalanced reporting on a topic that clearly has more than just one side. 

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