Times of Israel · March 2026

• Quotes Netanyahu's statements without distancing verbs
• Foregrounds Netanyahu's actions and decisions
• Includes critical voices from opposition and allies
• Reports investigations and controversies neutrally

The outlet treats Netanyahu as a credible wartime leader, amplifying his press conferences and statements authoritatively. However, it also includes critical headlines (e.g., Liberman's attack, aide's racist tirades, poll analysis) and neutral reporting of investigations, preventing a higher positive score. The entity's quoted content is often aggressive toward Iran, but the outlet itself does not adopt that aggression toward Netanyahu.

• Trump quoted directly and extensively as a primary source
• Headlines present Trump's statements as newsworthy and decisive
• Trump's actions and decisions are foregrounded as shaping events
• Occasional critical framing of Trump's shifting strategies

The outlet treats Trump as a key authoritative voice, quoting him directly and framing his statements as significant. However, some headlines (e.g., #24) critically examine his shifting strategies, and #21 reports a ban on AI, which could be seen as negative. Overall, the coverage is largely neutral-to-positive in stance toward Trump, as he is presented as a credible decision-maker, not delegitimized.

• foregrounds Iranian attacks on civilians and infrastructure
• reports Israeli strikes as justified countermeasures
• uses distancing language for Iranian claims and threats
• highlights international condemnation of Iran

The outlet consistently frames Iran as an aggressor and threat, while reporting Israeli actions as defensive or retaliatory. Iranian officials are quoted with verbs like 'says' or 'vows' but their statements are presented as threats or propaganda, not as credible positions. The coverage is overwhelmingly negative toward Iran, with no positive or neutral framing of Iranian actions or statements.

• Quotes Israeli officials authoritatively without distancing
• Foregrounds Israeli military actions as justified responses
• Reports Israeli casualties and civilian suffering with sympathy
• Includes some internal criticism (Liberman, Pardons Department) but not delegitimizing

The outlet treats Israel as a legitimate actor whose security concerns are taken seriously; Israeli officials (Katz, Netanyahu, Sa'ar) are quoted directly as authoritative voices. However, there is some internal criticism (headlines 12, 15, 22, 23) that prevents a +2 score. The entity's own statements (e.g., Netanyahu's 'barbarians' quote) are hostile to others, but the outlet itself frames Israel positively.

• labels Hezbollah as 'terror group' and 'proxy'
• foregrounds Israeli military actions and casualties from Hezbollah attacks
• quotes Israeli officials threatening Lebanon for not disarming Hezbollah
• reports Lebanese government actions against Hezbollah as positive

The outlet's stance is toward the entity 'LB' (Lebanon), which is treated as a state complicit in or victim of Hezbollah's actions; coverage consistently frames Hezbollah as a hostile actor and Lebanon as failing to control it, with Israeli threats and strikes presented as justified responses. Headline 22 shows approval of Lebanon expelling Iran's ambassador, reinforcing a negative stance toward Lebanon's association with Hezbollah.

• reports Palestinian casualties from Israeli military actions
• covers Palestinian militant groups' statements and actions
• includes Palestinian perspectives alongside Israeli official accounts
• uses neutral or factual language for most events

The outlet reports on Palestinians as a collective entity (PS) in a factual manner, but the coverage includes both Palestinian victimization (e.g., killings, displacements) and Palestinian militant actions (e.g., Hamas operations, protests). The stance is neutral overall, as the outlet does not consistently frame Palestinians positively or negatively; it presents events from multiple angles, including Israeli military perspectives and Palestinian casualties. However, the selection of headlines may reflect a focus on conflict-related incidents, which could be seen as balanced rather than biased.

• highlights shifting or contradictory US goals
• frames US actions as escalating beyond control
• uses critical verbs like 'justifies', 'admits', 'insists'
• includes reports of mistakes and warnings

The outlet reports US statements neutrally in some headlines (e.g., 1, 6, 20), but the overall selection emphasizes failures, contradictions, and negative consequences, indicating a skeptical stance toward the US as an actor.

• celebrates or justifies Khamenei's killing as liberation
• quotes Israeli and US officials mocking or dismissing Khamenei and his son
• frames Khamenei's regime as oppressive and his death as an end of an era
• highlights Iranian dissent and praise for Israel/US over Khamenei's death

The outlet consistently treats Khamenei as an adversary whose removal is positive; headlines 9 and 22 explicitly report Iranian celebration of his killing, and headline 20 frames his death as 'justice'. No headlines present a sympathetic or neutral view of Khamenei.

• Katz quoted directly as a credible decision-maker
• Katz's threats and promises reported without distancing verbs
• Katz's actions and statements framed as legitimate security measures
• No critical or skeptical framing of Katz's statements

Katz is consistently quoted making aggressive threats against Iran and Hezbollah, but the outlet treats him as an authoritative source, not as a problem. The content of his statements is hostile to others, but the outlet's stance toward Katz himself is favourable.