Euronews · Mai 2026

• factual reporting of US actions and statements
• occasional critical framing via third-party quotes
• no consistent evaluative language toward the US as entity

The entity is 'US' but coverage is overwhelmingly about Trump administration actions; some headlines use neutral reporting (e.g., oil prices, judge ruling), while others include critical third-party quotes (e.g., Almodóvar calling EU a 'shield' against Trump). No systematic positive or negative stance toward the US as a country; stance is effectively neutral due to the entity being a broad nation rather than a specific actor.

• reports Trump's actions and statements without evaluative adjectives
• uses neutral verbs like 'says', 'announces', 'vows', 'endorses'
• occasionally includes critical framing from other sources or context
• some headlines imply Trump's influence or power (e.g., 'ramps up pressure', 'pending Trump's approval')

Coverage is largely factual and neutral, but a few headlines (e.g., #8, #20, #24) introduce negative context about Trump's decisions or outcomes, while others (#1, #6, #10) present him as a central actor without criticism. The bundle lacks consistent positive or negative editorial voice toward Trump, resulting in a neutral stance overall.

• reports EU actions and statements without evaluative adjectives
• quotes EU officials as authoritative sources
• covers EU policy debates and internal negotiations factually
• includes critical perspectives (e.g., dependency on China, budget winners/losers) without endorsing them

The outlet treats the EU as a normal institutional actor; coverage is largely descriptive of its policies, negotiations, and statements. No consistent positive or negative framing toward the EU itself is evident. Headlines that quote EU officials (e.g., von der Leyen, Kos, Dombrovskis) present them as credible, but this is standard for institutional reporting and does not rise to a favourable stance. The few critical angles (e.g., dependency on China, budget distribution) are presented as neutral observations, not as attacks on the EU.

• distancing verbs like 'claims' for Putin's statements
• negative framing of Russia's actions (disinformation, invasion law, protest)
• foregrounding opposition voices and critical perspectives
• neutral reporting of Putin's diplomatic moves but with skeptical context

Coverage is consistently skeptical toward Russia and Putin, using distancing language and highlighting negative actions, but stops short of outright hostile rhetoric; some headlines are factual reporting of events without explicit evaluative language.

• Zelenskyy quoted authoritatively as Ukraine's voice
• Focus on Ukraine as victim of Russian aggression
• Positive framing of Ukraine's European values and aspirations
• Corruption probes framed as not implicating Zelenskyy personally

Coverage includes some negative stories (corruption probe involving ex-chief of staff, Polish leader's criticism), but these are reported factually without delegitimising Zelenskyy or Ukraine. The outlet consistently amplifies Zelenskyy's statements and frames Ukraine as defending European values against Russian aggression.

• Quotes Xi's statements directly without evaluative framing
• Uses Xi's name in diplomatic context without negative modifiers
• Reports Xi's actions (vows, urges, warns) as factual events
• Includes positive framing of China's economic progress

Coverage is largely factual and diplomatic, with no overt hostility or celebration toward Xi or China. Headlines 7 and 24 quote Xi positively ('open door wider', 'progress compatible'), but these are direct quotes, not outlet endorsement. Headline 15 reports a warning neutrally. No consistent negative framing or distancing verbs are used. Stance is neutral overall, though the outlet does not challenge or criticize Xi's statements.

• factual reporting of UK political and economic events
• mix of positive and negative developments without evaluative framing of the country
• focus on specific actors (Starmer, Farage, companies) rather than GB as a whole

Headlines cover a range of topics (politics, business, culture) with no consistent positive or negative stance toward the UK as a country; stance is neutral because the entity is GB, not a specific leader or party, and coverage is varied and factual.

• factual reporting of political and economic developments
• quoting German officials and figures without evaluative framing
• balanced coverage of controversies and achievements

Coverage is largely neutral, mixing positive developments (e.g., anti-drone system, EU honouring Merkel) with critical warnings (e.g., deindustrialisation, divisive legacy) and political disputes (e.g., Merz proposals, Trump clash). No consistent positive or negative stance toward Germany as a country.

• Zelenskyy quoted authoritatively on threats and diplomacy
• negative events (corruption probes) reported with distancing from Zelenskyy
• Zelenskyy's actions and statements framed as legitimate responses
• occasional negative framing from third parties (Polish leader, Fico) but not endorsed

Headlines 4, 5, 6, 16 introduce negative or controversial angles (corruption, third-party criticism, apparent concession), but the outlet's own voice does not endorse these; corruption probes are reported as involving his ex-chief of staff, not him, and headline 15 explicitly clears him. Overall, Zelenskyy is treated as a credible actor whose warnings and diplomatic moves are reported without distancing verbs, and his denunciations of Russia are amplified. The stance is mildly positive because the outlet consistently presents him as a legitimate leader facing challenges, not as a problem.

• distancing verbs like 'claims' and 'says' for Putin's statements
• negative framing of Putin's actions and intentions
• quoting critics and opponents of Putin
• focus on Putin's aggression and isolation

Some headlines are neutral factual reports of Putin's activities (e.g., visits, ceremonies), but the overall selection emphasizes criticism, distancing, and negative framing. The entity's quoted content is often aggressive, but the outlet's own language (e.g., 'claims', 'targets NATO', 'invade other countries') treats Putin as a problem actor.

• Quotes Xi's statements without evaluative framing
• Reports Xi's diplomatic activities as routine statecraft
• Uses Xi's own words in headlines without distancing verbs
• No editorial commentary or negative descriptors for Xi

Headlines are predominantly factual or quote Xi directly; no explicit positive or negative stance. The entity's quoted content (e.g., warnings on Taiwan, urging rescue) is reported neutrally. The outlet does not use distancing language like 'claims' or 'alleges', but also does not praise or celebrate Xi. Stance is neutral overall.

• Foregrounds new PM's agency and initiatives
• Uses neutral-to-positive framing of Magyar's actions
• Reports Orbán-era reversals as positive developments
• Exclusive sourcing signals privileged access

Stance is toward the country entity (HU) as a whole, not a single leader. Coverage is favourable to the new Magyar government (reversals of Orbán policies, EU reset) but neutral-to-critical toward the previous Orbán era. Headlines 1-5 and 12 show some neutral reporting of controversies, but the overall arc is positive for the new administration.

• neutral reporting of government actions and statements
• occasional positive framing of Macron's diplomatic role
• negative coverage of French institutions (convictions, protests, scandals)
• balanced mix of domestic controversies and international initiatives

Coverage is diverse: Macron is often quoted authoritatively (positive tilt), but the bundle also includes negative stories about French entities (Air France conviction, farmer protests, Sarkozy trial, abuse allegations). The stance toward France as a country is neutral overall because the outlet reports both achievements and problems without consistent editorial bias.