The front-page New York Times news article about protests in Hong Kong begins, "HONG KONG — Anti-government protesters clashed with Hong Kong riot police on Tuesday, crippling the airport for the second straight day and targeting a potent symbol of the city's position as a global center of commerce and finance that is essential to China."
Anti-government isn't the correct word here, unless the Times plans to start using it to describe, say, anti-Trump protests here in the U.S. The protesters aren't anarchists, at least so far as I can tell from other news coverage. They just oppose the policies that the Chinese Communist authorities are pursuing in Hong Kong, in violation of the liberty of the people who live there and in violation of the one country, two-systems agreement by which Great Britain turned authority in Hong Kong over to China. Instead of describing the protesters as "anti-government," why not describe them as "pro-freedom" or "pro-democracy" or "pro-rule-of-law."
By this definition, the Times is an anti-government newspaper, at least here in the U.S. Maybe the article was edited by a Brit who uses "government" the way American English uses "administration."
The Times, by the way, also hasn't so far weighed in with any staff editorials in full throated support of the most recent round of protests, though it did devote a single three-sentence paragraph to them in the midst of a long editorial denouncing President Trump's tariffs on China.