Close Menu
Market Data Newsletter
Monday, September 28
Global Free Speech

Photojournalist injured by police while covering protest in Spain’s Mallorca

News RoomBy No Comments2 Mins Read8 Views
Photojournalist injured by police while covering protest in Spain’s Mallorca

Listen to the article

0:00
0:00

Berlin, July 29, 2026—The Committee to Protect Journalists calls on Spanish authorities to ensure that police forces guarantee the safety of journalists covering protests after freelance journalist Xavi Hurtado was hit by a police officer while covering a demonstration in Palma, Mallorca and left needing hospital treatment for a head wound and bruising. 

On July 26, Hurtado was documenting clashes between Spain’s National Police force and demonstrators following a largely peaceful protest against overtourism on the Mediterranean island. Video footage from multiple angles, reviewed by CPJ, appears to show Hurtado photographing police as they confronted the protesters and then an officer striking Hurtado, who fell to the ground. 

⁠Hurtado ⁠said on X that he had needed stitches for a forehead wound and also had bruising to his legs and abdomen. He was treated in hospital before being released later the same day.

“Journalists in Spain must be able to report on police operations during protests safely and without fear of being assaulted by police,” said Attila Mong, CPJ’s Europe representative. “Xavi Hurtado was doing his job when a police officer struck him. Police must not use violence against journalists, and must allow them to document demonstrations, including officers’ use of force, without interference.”

On July 27,  Spain’s government delegate in Mallorca, Alfonso Rodríguez, said the police intervention appeared “excessive and violent,” adding that some officers seemed to have used force against people who posed no threat. He said he had requested a full report from the National Police to determine responsibility. 

Local media quoted police sources as saying police intervened after what they described as a “radical minority” threw stones, bottles, sticks, and other objects at officers. Police said five officers were injured while organizers of the protest said more than 10 demonstrators were injured.

CPJ emailed Spain’s Ministry of the Interior, which has oversight of the National Police, seeking comment on the incident but did not immediately receive a response.

Read the full article here

Fact Checker

Verify the accuracy of this article using AI-powered analysis and real-time sources.

Share.

The FSNN News Room is the voice of our in-house journalists, editors, and researchers. We deliver timely, unbiased reporting at the crossroads of finance, cryptocurrency, and global politics, providing clear, fact-driven analysis free from agendas.

Related Articles

Global Free Speech

The BBC clearly sees the value of television series That Mitchell and Webb Look. Marking the 20th anniversary of its original screening, the Beeb has re-released the series on iPlayer. But – and there is very often a “but” with these things – they’ve removed around 11 sketches from the BAFTA award-winning show. The official word is that these sketches don’t “work today”, which is polite speak for “they may cause offence”. The episodes singled out include scenes featuring a battle reenactment with characters in blackface, a contestant on a show wearing a burka and a lost tribe” in a garden centre. These sketches set out to challenge stereotypes, not to reinforce them; but 20 years on, this distinction seems to have been lost along the way. I’m a bit uncomfortable about this. I find it infantilising, to say the least. Can’t we trust audiences to make up their own minds, to switch off if they find the sketches in question unpalatable? Does the BBC think that we are just passive consumers, unable to disaggregate the mocking of racism from racism itself? These sketches set out to challenge stereotypes, not to reinforce them This act of censorship is distorting – of the shows, whose narratives and rhythms were built to include these sketches, and more broadly too. Conversations we were having 20 years ago have been erased, as if to suggest that they never happened. But they did! And with this erasure, the opportunity for thoughtful engagement and learning from our past is gone. “Let’s just pretend we were all lovely 20 years ago. It’s better that way” seems to be the message. Speaking as a minority myself, I find that knowing the nasty stuff that people said before – and indeed, still say today – is much more useful than pretending it never happened. This approach, I think, is also inconsistent. What it reveals is a cherry-picking (intended or not) of the groups that we can mock, and those that we can’t. Let’s face it, gender stereotypes are rarely deemed to have aged beyond the pale – if that were the case, we would have to wave goodbye to half the television made before the mid-2010s. Suppression like this sends a bad message to artists, namely that what they’re creating today may hold less value tomorrow. Or, even worse, that future audiences may deem them bigots – that Sword of Damocles hovering over the heads of any creative paying attention to the discourse of the moment. Suppression like this sends a bad message to artists The BBC’s decision reaffirms a broader trend. In 2020, Little Britain was removed from the iPlayer platform for similar reasons. It has since been reinstated – minus some sketches. Meanwhile, the UK’s arts space more broadly is seeing a retreat to the land of “safe”, as Index recently revealed in a year-long investigation into self-censorship in UK theatre. The BBC, it must be said, does remarkable stuff. The ongoing podcast investigation into the disappearance of US journalist Austin Tice is just one example. But this does not mean, however, that they don’t sometimes get it wrong. Chopping at That Mitchell and Webb Look is one example. Sure, the removal of the material isn’t the life-or-death story that Index often works on. Sure, Mitchell and Webb aren’t the faces of persecuted artists – they have huge platforms and agreed to the changes themselves. Still, one can’t help but think that the decision came from a place of conservatism, perhaps even fear. This is weak and dispiriting, indeed the very opposite of what enables creativity in the arts. We shouldn’t be encouraging this cultural timidity. Rather, we should harness culture and creativity as the starting points of a conversation about our here and now. That’s what the arts are for, after all. READ MORE

Add A Comment

Comments are closed.