Euronews · Februar 2026

• Quotes Macron as authoritative voice on policy
• Reports on French political controversies without evaluative framing
• Covers both government actions and opposition/activist events
• Uses neutral attribution for French officials and institutions

Coverage is mixed: Macron is quoted positively on nuclear and defense policy, but the outlet also reports on far-right activist death, Le Pen trial, and central bank governor resignation without taking a stance toward France as a whole. The entity is a country, not a single actor, so stance is inherently diffuse.

• uses distancing verbs like 'says' and 'claims'
• frames Trump's actions as controversial or harmful
• highlights opposition and satire against Trump
• reports setbacks and negative consequences of his policies

Some headlines report Trump's actions neutrally (e.g., #1, #11), but the overall selection emphasizes criticism, policy failures, and mockery, indicating a skeptical stance toward Trump.

• reports Trump's actions and statements without overt editorializing
• uses neutral framing for US policy moves and market impacts
• includes critical or skeptical headlines about US figures (Trump, Epstein ties)
• mixes factual reporting with some negative selection (tariffs, threats, scandals)

The outlet treats the US as a geopolitical actor with neutral reporting on policy and market news, but several headlines focus on Trump's controversial statements and scandals (Epstein, threats, tariff disputes), introducing a skeptical undertone. However, the entity is 'US' as a country, not the administration, and coverage of US institutions (NASA, Wall Street) is factual. Stance is neutral overall due to mixed framing.

• policy-focused headlines without evaluative adjectives toward the EU
• mix of positive initiatives (EU Inc, startup replication) and critical scrutiny (budget flaws, political meddling)
• EU quoted as decision-maker but also subject of external criticism (Italy calls for restraint, Court of Auditors warns)
• no consistent framing of the EU as hero or villain

The EU is treated as a neutral institutional actor; coverage includes both its policy ambitions and its internal challenges, without systematic favour or hostility. Headlines 6 and 24 quote external actors (Zourabichvili, Baltic leaders) supporting EU positions, but the outlet does not adopt that stance itself.

• associates Russia with aggression and conflict
• highlights accusations and negative actions by Russia
• uses distancing language when quoting Russian officials
• frames Russia as a problem for the EU and Ukraine

Headlines 1 and 17 are neutral or positive, but the majority focus on Russia's negative actions, accusations, or EU opposition to Russia, indicating a skeptical stance.

• foregrounds regime repression and protests
• uses distancing or negative framing for Iranian authorities
• highlights internal dissent and crackdowns
• reports threats and war preparations with implied alarm

The entity is a country (Iran), not a single leader; coverage focuses on the regime/authorities, consistently highlighting repression, instability, and threats, which yields a skeptical-to-critical stance. Headlines about Khamenei's death (5, 12) are factual but the overall selection emphasizes negative aspects of the regime.

• Macron quoted directly as policy initiator
• Macron's actions presented as proactive and statesmanlike
• Defensive framing against external attacks (smear campaign)
• Neutral reporting of institutional events (resignation, deadlines)

Headline 4 (resignation) is neutral; headline 3 defends Macron against smear campaign, showing implicit positive stance. Overall, Macron is treated as a credible leader whose proposals and statements are reported without distancing verbs or criticism.

• frames Epstein as a scandal nexus implicating elites
• uses 'Epstein scandal' and 'Epstein files' as recurring negative labels
• highlights criminal probe, fake photos, and smear campaigns tied to Epstein
• associates Epstein with access to power and illicit assets

The outlet's stance toward Epstein is uniformly hostile, treating him as a criminal figure whose legacy is a source of ongoing scandal and investigation. No headlines present Epstein neutrally or positively; all reinforce his negative association with corruption, crime, and elite malfeasance.

• Quotes German officials as authoritative voices on security and policy
• Reports on German institutional actions and challenges without evaluative language
• Includes both positive developments (Airbus deal) and negative events (strike, espionage)
• Occasional critical framing via selection of problems (strike, espionage, Gaza visit controversy)

Coverage is largely factual and balanced, with no consistent positive or negative stance toward Germany as an entity. Headlines quoting German officials (Merz, parliament chief) treat them as credible sources, but the outlet also reports on German problems (strike, espionage) neutrally. The entity is a country, not a person, so stance is assessed on how the outlet frames Germany's actions and institutions—neither celebratory nor hostile.