BBC World · February 2026

• evaluative adjectives framing Trump's actions as theatrical or problematic
• distancing verbs like 'vows', 'says', 'touts' without endorsement
• selection of negative or controversial stories (racist video, Epstein, firings)
• inclusion of critical voices (Democrat, Coco Gauff, fact-checking)

Some headlines are neutral factual reports of Trump's actions (e.g., 1, 6, 19, 24), but the overall bundle skews toward highlighting controversies, using evaluative language ('theatrical', 'racist clip', 'clash'), and including critical perspectives, indicating a skeptical stance toward Trump.

• factual reporting of UK government actions and controversies
• mix of positive sports achievements and negative political scandals
• no consistent evaluative language toward GB as a country

Coverage includes both positive sports stories (GB Olympic gold) and negative political scandals (Mandelson, Epstein links), but the outlet does not frame GB itself positively or negatively; stance is toward the country, not its government or individuals.

• associates Epstein with criminal exploitation and scandal
• uses 'Epstein files' as a frame for exposing corruption and abuse
• highlights Epstein's network of powerful enablers and victims
• employs language of disgrace, corruption, and investigation

The outlet's stance is uniformly negative, treating Epstein as a central figure in a web of abuse and corruption; no positive or neutral framing appears.

• Trump actions reported with neutral or slightly critical framing
• Epstein-related stories associate US entities with scandal
• US government actions covered factually without overt praise or condemnation
• Mix of domestic and international US policy stories

Coverage is mixed: some headlines report Trump's actions neutrally (e.g., backing Chagos deal, ordering AI files release), while others link US figures to Epstein scandal or frame Trump's foreign policy as a dilemma. No consistent positive or negative stance toward the US as a whole; the entity is too broad for a single stance.

• Framing Starmer's leadership as under threat or in peril
• Highlighting scandals and calls for resignation
• Using speculative and questioning headlines about his future
• Quoting allies defensively rather than amplifying his authority

Headline 3 quotes Starmer's condemnation of Russian attacks without distancing, showing some neutral/positive treatment of his foreign policy stance. However, the overwhelming majority of headlines focus on political vulnerability, scandals, and existential questions about his leadership, indicating a skeptical stance overall.

• foregrounding scandal and criminal investigation
• using scandal as lens for political damage to PM
• quoting critics and opponents without balancing defence
• emphasising lies, resignation, and regret

The entity's own quoted content is not present; the outlet frames Mandelson entirely through allegations, investigations, and political fallout, with no sympathetic or authoritative treatment. The stance is toward Mandelson, not toward Starmer or Epstein.

• factual reporting of events and controversies
• balanced mix of positive and negative stories
• use of neutral language without evaluative adjectives toward India as a whole
• occasional critical coverage of specific incidents or policies

Coverage is diverse and largely factual; some headlines highlight problems (snakebite crisis, mine blast, regulatory issues) while others show positive developments (heroic individuals, court closure of case, teacher award). No consistent positive or negative stance toward the country as an entity; stance is neutral overall.