So either it's a political statement, or they somehow are subject to the GDPR, e.g. they are owned by a multi-national conglomerate, or sell data to them.
If only a fraction of their users come from the EU they don't need to deal with GDPR, they're exempt from it.
Edit: this is incorrect, see comment by guitarbill below.
> In order to determine whether such a controller or processor is offering goods or services to data subjects who are in the Union, it should be ascertained whether it is apparent that the controller or processor envisages offering services to data subjects in one or more Member States in the Union.
it's far more likely they aren't "local" news stations, but owned by a multi-national, or selling data to multi-national corporations subject to GDPR.
You do not have to comply with GDPR if you are fully outside of the EU's jurisdiction and do no business in the EU.
Every site that gets created does not have to try to comply with every privacy law from every place on earth. At this point it's just belligerent propaganda to try to claim otherwise. It serves no good purpose to lie and pretend that every site on earth with EU visitors must comply with GDPR. That's a non-functioning future: all sites will not be able to comply with all privacy laws from all jurisdictions around the world. It's also legally unenforceable hogwash.
It goes even further however. As an EU citizen not only does GDPR not grant you any new protections in the US jurisdiction, you have very few privacy protections (none?) in the US. Sites with no business in the EU, those that aren't covered by the EU in any manner jurisdiction wise, can do nearly anything they want to with EU citizen data. Lawsuits can be filed against such sites, and they'll be promptly dismissed because the US isn't governed by EU law.
That paragraph really doesn't say what you think it says. But like all such EU legislation it's really so vague that people who support the EU's political aims will read something anodyne into it, and people who are more suspicious will read something more dangerous, and they can both be right depending on the whims of the commission and ECJ.
However I will note that the EU does have an established track record of making surprising and totally unintuitive judgements about laws that appear to be much clearer and more definitive than what you just cited. The wording of the law is really not as reliable as you might hope with the ECJ.
Another point is that the organisation would need some kind of legal presence in the EU, otherwise it would be impossible to prosecute them even if they did violate EU law.
Even if they somehow figured out that they were already completely compliant (and ignoring the work involved in discovering that), there are policies and procedures you need to write to document who you share their data with and respond to requests from EU citizens about their data and the features to support answering those.
Again. Knee jerk internet reactions divorced from reality.
Access logs are not illegal under the GDPR. Stop spreading FUD.
You better inform yourself before making incorrect assertions
But it does get tiring, really