I’ve just been eavesdropping as a cc on this matter but I can assure you that there is no legal basis for a shopping mall like the one you’re describing to forbid photography on its premises, whether by a journalist or anyone else.
If a mall visitor were using a camera (or a shoehorn or a Baby Ruth) in a manner to disrupt, harass or deter the lawful activities of others, that conduct could be a basis for asking the person to leave.
But photography as such is a communicative activity which, pursuant to decisions of the California Supreme Court, cannot simply be barred by a proprietor of commercial property who has opened that property to traffic and casual congregation by the general public. Anyone rousted, ousted or arrested for taking a picture would have a tort case against the mall and/or the police that many lawyers would be happy to take.
By the way, instead of barring dogs from this mall, its owners should hire them as security guards and get rid of the two-legged specimens, who don’t seem to have the fine discrimination and judgment that most canines display.
P.S. If you are not already on the list, and if you do not object (just let me know), I will add your e-mail address to our free weekly newsletter subscriber list; please adjust any SPAM filters you may have accordingly.