I don't think things like GDPR and "free press" are in conflict like you think they are.... at least you haven't explained how they are supposedly in conflict.

HIPAA exists... and it doesn't prevent the press from using that information.

Part of free speech is being able to gather and record information. Observation.

The press can do that... that's allowed.

I'm not sure your really have a good grasp on what any of these laws actually do, let alone 'free speech'. You keep alluding to complications that don't exist and don't explain what you're talking about.

If the GDPR didn't affect press freedom, the USA Today wouldn't be serving a different version of its website to EU users.

They're serving the same articles.

For "press freedom" defined as the writing and publishing of articles, it's unaffected.

For "press freedom" defined as literally any action a member of the press takes, sure it's affected, but that's a very flawed definition. It's not like drunk driving laws are an infringement on "press freedom", even though they occasionally affect members of the press.

Have you considered that USA Today doesn't have an exquisite understanding of the law?

Or perhaps, that USA Today is collecting tracking data on its users and selling it secretly to 3rd parties and doesn't want to stop spying?

Plenty of other newspapers have had no problem implementing GDPR. It's as simple as not spying on your users.

I think you should look into the differences and think critically about why there are differences.