Tagesschau · März 2026

• factual reporting of US government actions without evaluative adjectives
• quoting US officials with neutral attribution (e.g., 'sagt', 'fordert')
• occasional critical framing via selection of European/Ukrainian concerns
• use of 'Trump' as metonym for US policy, not the country as a whole

The bundle treats 'US' as a geopolitical actor, not a single leader; coverage is largely factual but includes headlines that foreground European criticism (e.g., #4, #17) and one commentary (#25) that may imply distance. No consistent positive or negative stance toward the country itself; stance=0 reflects neutral institutional reporting.

• entity appears only in passing or as context
• no evaluative language toward the entity
• coverage is event-driven, not entity-focused

The entity 'DE' (Germany) is not the primary subject of most headlines; coverage is diverse and factual, with no discernible stance toward the country as a whole.

• factual reporting of events without evaluative adjectives toward Iran
• use of neutral attribution verbs like 'meldet', 'bestätigt', 'sagt'
• focus on geopolitical and military developments rather than moral judgment
• inclusion of expert analysis and multiple perspectives

Coverage is overwhelmingly about war and conflict, but the outlet's own voice remains neutral; Iran is treated as a geopolitical actor, not vilified or lionized. The entity is a country, so stance toward the state is measured; no consistent positive or negative framing detected.

• portrays Trump as aggressive and unilateral
• highlights opposition and internal division
• uses distancing or critical framing in headlines
• focuses on negative consequences and lack of strategy

Some headlines are neutral factual reports (e.g., 6, 19), but the overall selection emphasizes Trump's confrontational moves, strategic gaps, and domestic/political pushback, indicating a skeptical editorial stance.

• reports EU decisions and internal conflicts without evaluative framing
• uses neutral verbs like 'erteilt', 'blockiert', 'stimmt', 'berät'
• covers both EU successes (trade deals) and failures (blocked aid, vetoes)
• includes criticism of EU actors (EVP, Orban) but as reported speech, not outlet's own voice

The outlet reports internal EU dysfunction (vetoes, far-right alliances) factually, not with hostility toward the EU as an entity. The EU is treated as a neutral institutional actor whose actions and conflicts are described without editorial stance. Headlines critical of specific EU figures (Orban, EVP) are attributed to other actors or reported as events, not adopted by the outlet.

• neutral reporting of official actions and statements
• occasional critical framing via commentary or third-party criticism
• use of direct quotes without evaluative adjectives

Headline 3 is a commentary that may be positive, but the bundle overall is factual; headline 11 and 15 introduce critical perspectives, but these are attributed to others or presented as analysis, not the outlet's own stance. The outlet does not consistently praise or attack Merz.

• passive framing of attacks without attributing blame to LB
• focus on military actions by both Israel and Hezbollah
• use of neutral terms like 'Angriffe', 'Krieg', 'Konflikt'
• no evaluative language toward Lebanon as a state

Headlines treat Lebanon primarily as a geographic location of conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, not as an actor. The entity 'LB' (country) is not directly evaluated; coverage is factual and event-driven. Stance is neutral because the outlet does not frame Lebanon itself positively or negatively.