Süddeutsche Zeitung · February 2026

• foregrounds controversies and scandals involving US actors
• uses distancing or critical framing of US actions and policies
• highlights domestic opposition and negative consequences of US decisions

Coverage is mixed: some headlines are neutral or factual (e.g., 21, 24), but the overall selection emphasizes US scandals (Epstein, Thiel), policy critiques (climate, tariffs, attacks), and domestic opposition (Democrat win, athlete statements). The outlet's own vocabulary ('umgedeutet', 'angebliche', 'rassistisch') signals skepticism toward US government actions and figures, though not uniformly hostile.

• neutral reporting of actions and statements
• occasional critical framing (risk, Druckmittel-Liste, Pinocchio)
• balanced coverage of successes and challenges
• use of distancing verbs in some contexts

Coverage is largely factual and balanced, but includes some critical headlines (e.g., 'Wenn Merz ein Risiko wird', 'Vorbild Trump', 'Pinocchio') that suggest mild skepticism. However, many headlines report Merz's actions neutrally or even positively (e.g., 'vieles richtig gemacht'). The outlet does not consistently lionize or delegitimize Merz, resulting in a neutral stance overall.

• foregrounding Trump's controversial actions and statements
• using distancing or negative framing verbs
• highlighting opposition and legal challenges to Trump
• associating Trump with racism and authoritarian moves

Some headlines report Trump's actions neutrally (e.g., 6, 18), but the overall selection emphasizes scandals, threats, and opposition, with no positive or sympathetic framing of Trump himself.

• frames AfD as a threat or problem
• uses distancing and delegitimizing language
• highlights legal and institutional setbacks for AfD
• reports on internal AfD conflicts and external pressure

The entity is DE (Germany) but the coverage focuses overwhelmingly on the AfD party, which is treated skeptically/critically; the stance toward the country as a whole is inferred from the outlet's critical framing of a major political actor within it.

• labels Epstein as 'Sexualverbrecher' (sexual offender) in own voice
• frames Epstein's life as 'Abgründe' (abysses) and his entourage as exploitative
• focuses on criminal network, victims, and institutional complicity
• uses scandal vocabulary ('Skandal', 'Files', 'Vertraute') to maintain negative framing

All headlines treat Epstein as a criminal figure; no neutral or positive framing appears. The outlet's own evaluative language ('Sexualverbrecher', 'Abgründe') shows clear hostility. Even when quoting associates, the framing is about scandal and exploitation.