Gazeta.ru · March 2026

• factual reporting of Iranian actions and statements
• quoting Iranian officials without evaluative distance
• including negative events (deaths, strikes) without editorializing
• mixing Iranian claims with third-party reactions

Coverage is largely factual and event-driven, with no consistent positive or negative framing of Iran as an entity. Headlines report Iranian statements and actions neutrally, but also include reports of Israeli/US strikes and Iranian casualties, which could imply a negative context. However, the outlet does not use delegitimizing language or overtly hostile framing. The mix of Iranian claims and external reactions suggests a balanced, if somewhat detached, stance.

• Quoting Zelensky but framing him as a source of complaints or demands
• Using third-party criticism (Kremlin, Trump, Orban, ex-advisers) to undermine his position
• Highlighting Zelensky's failures or setbacks (late to meeting, losing US support, funding shortages)
• Associating him with controversial actions (supporting Azov, proposing buffer zone in Russia)

The outlet often quotes Zelensky directly, which could imply some authority, but the surrounding headlines consistently feature external voices criticizing him or emphasize his difficulties, creating a skeptical overall stance. Headline 23 explicitly links him to 'neonazi' Azov, a strongly negative framing.

• Quoting Trump's statements without evaluative framing
• Highlighting Trump's failures and negative reactions (nervous breakdown, failure in Iran)
• Including critical assessments from third parties (mental retardation, leading to world war)
• Mixing neutral policy announcements with personal or scandalous details (spot on neck)

Many headlines are neutral reports of Trump's statements, but the bundle includes several that foreground criticism or personal flaws, suggesting a skeptical editorial stance. The outlet does not consistently lionize or delegitimize Trump, but the selection leans toward negative framing.

• Putin is quoted directly as a decision-maker and global statesman
• Headlines foreground Putin's actions and statements without distancing verbs
• Putin's words are presented as consequential and credible
• Other leaders (Trump, Orban, UAE president) are shown engaging with Putin as an equal or superior

The outlet is Russian state-aligned; Putin is consistently treated as a legitimate authority. Headlines that quote him making threats or criticisms (e.g., about Ukraine or gas) do not imply negative stance toward him—they amplify his position. No headlines use distancing or delegitimising language toward Putin.

• highlights US failures and setbacks
• uses distancing or critical framing of US actions
• amplifies Russian and other critics' statements about US

Many headlines quote Trump directly without evaluative framing, but the selection emphasizes US defeats, internal criticism, and Russian officials' dismissive comments, indicating a skeptical stance toward the US.

• Quoting Zelensky with distancing verbs like 'обвинил', 'заявил', 'рассказал'
• Foregrounding negative or embarrassing stories about Ukraine/Zelensky
• Using sources hostile to Ukraine (Russian officials, veterans, ex-advisors) to frame the entity
• Highlighting Western criticism of Zelensky

The outlet consistently frames Ukraine and Zelensky through a Russian perspective, using distancing language and amplifying negative narratives. However, the stance is not outright hostile (-2) because some headlines are neutral factual reports; the skepticism is clear but not uniformly vitriolic.

• Quotes Russian officials as authoritative voices on international affairs
• Uses verbs like 'напомнили', 'заявил', 'оценил', 'объяснил' without distancing
• Frames Russian positions as assertive and justified
• Selects headlines that amplify Russian perspectives on conflicts

The entity is the country RU, and the outlet consistently presents Russian officials' statements as credible and authoritative, with no critical framing or distancing language. The coverage is aligned with Russian state interests, treating RU as a legitimate and powerful actor.

• Quotes Zakharova's statements without distancing verbs
• Uses her own evaluative language as headline framing
• Foregrounds her criticism of Western actors as legitimate
• Presents her as a witty, authoritative commentator

Zakharova is consistently quoted making sharp criticisms of Western entities, but the outlet treats her as a credible, authoritative voice, amplifying her statements without skepticism or distancing language.

• Quotes Israeli officials without evaluative commentary
• Reports Iranian claims and casualties without endorsement
• Includes third-party criticism of Israel (China, Turkey, Houthis)
• No outlet's own negative or positive adjectives toward Israel

Headlines 2, 8, and 15 quote Netanyahu neutrally; headline 12 reports Chinese opposition to Israeli strikes; headline 16 reports Turkish evaluation of Netanyahu's policy. The outlet does not use hostile or celebratory language toward Israel, but the selection includes both Israeli statements and international criticism, resulting in a neutral overall stance.

• foregrounds internal NATO conflicts and US criticism
• uses distancing framing when quoting NATO officials
• highlights NATO's reluctance or failures
• includes Russian sources criticizing NATO

The outlet often reports NATO actions neutrally, but the selection emphasizes US threats, internal disagreements, and Russian accusations, creating a skeptical overall stance. Headline 7 (Rutte calling Russia a threat) is reported without evaluative language, but the bundle's framing tilts negative.

• Quotes critics of EU and its leaders prominently
• Uses distancing or negative framing for EU actions
• Highlights EU internal divisions and failures
• Amplifies accusations against EU from non-EU officials

The outlet consistently selects and frames headlines that undermine EU authority and unity, often quoting Russian or allied officials attacking EU policies. While the entity (EU) is not directly called names, the editorial treatment is systematically critical, justifying a -1 stance.