France 24 (EN) · March 2026

• factual reporting of government actions and statements
• balanced coverage of political figures and events
• no consistent evaluative language toward France as a country

Coverage is largely neutral and institutional, focusing on official statements and events. Some headlines quote Macron positively (e.g., 'To be free, we have to be feared') but without outlet endorsement; others report controversies (Sarkozy trials, far-right setbacks) without framing France negatively. The entity is a country, not a single actor, so stance is inherently mixed.

• highlights internal opposition and resignations within Trump's base
• uses distancing verbs like 'mulls', 'warns', 'threatens'
• frames Trump's actions as risky or controversial (e.g., Geneva Conventions, market uncertainty)
• includes critical expert opinions and negative electoral outcomes

Coverage is largely factual but selects for negative framing: internal dissent, legal concerns, electoral loss, and expert criticism. Trump is quoted directly in some headlines (e.g., #9, #18) but the outlet's own vocabulary and story selection tilt toward skepticism. No celebratory or promotional headlines.

• foregrounds Trump's controversies and failures
• uses distancing or mocking framing for Trump's statements
• highlights internal opposition and negative consequences of US actions
• associates US with scandals and instability

The outlet's stance is toward the US as a country, but coverage is heavily focused on the Trump administration and its actions, which are treated critically. The entity is not the US in a broad sense but the current US government; the tone is skeptical and often negative, but not uniformly hostile, as some headlines are neutral factual reports.

• focuses on Iranian military actions and threats
• uses distancing verbs like 'warns', 'threatens', 'vows'
• highlights internal regime vulnerability and succession
• includes world reaction celebrating Khamenei's death

Coverage is largely factual reporting of conflict events, but selection emphasizes Iranian aggression and regime fragility, with some headlines (e.g., 16) showing world reaction that is negative toward the entity. No overtly hostile language, but consistent framing of Iran as a threat and its leadership as under pressure.

• factual attribution of actions to both sides
• focus on civilian impact and humanitarian consequences
• quoting Lebanese officials without evaluative framing
• no explicit editorial stance toward Lebanon as a country

Coverage is overwhelmingly about Israel-Hezbollah conflict; Lebanon is portrayed as a battleground and victim of strikes, but the outlet does not take a clear positive or negative stance toward the country itself. Headlines are largely descriptive, with humanitarian angles (e.g., displacement, civilian deaths) but no delegitimising or celebratory language about Lebanon. The entity is a country, not a single actor, so stance is neutral by nature.

• reports Israeli military actions with neutral or negative framing
• highlights accusations against Israel (HRW, insider trading, failed operation)
• quotes Netanyahu but often with distancing or contextualizing verbs
• includes expert analysis critical of Israeli strategy

The outlet frequently quotes Netanyahu and Israeli officials directly, which could imply some credibility, but the selection of headlines emphasizes Israeli military failures, accusations of misconduct, and political maneuvering (e.g., appeasing Trump). The tone is more critical than celebratory, though not consistently hostile.

• factual reporting of death and reactions
• analytical questions about regime stability
• attribution of statements without evaluative language
• mixed coverage of mourning and celebration

Coverage is primarily factual and analytical, not evaluative toward Khamenei. Headlines report his death, reactions, and succession without positive or negative framing of the entity himself. The outlet does not adopt a hostile or celebratory tone; it treats the event as a news story. However, the analytical questions (e.g., 'Can the Iranian regime hold?') imply a critical perspective on the regime's stability, not directly on Khamenei as a person. The entity is not quoted authoritatively posthumously, but his death is reported as a significant event.