La Repubblica · February 2026

• evaluative nouns like 'vergogna' (shame), 'follia' (madness) attached to Trump's actions
• framing Trump as a source of problems for allies ('mette in difficoltà')
• quoting critics (Clinton, Laika) without balancing Trump's perspective
• negative selection: polls drop, electoral losses, policy reversals highlighted

Some headlines quote Trump directly without evaluative framing (e.g., #1, #3, #6, #10, #19), but the overall editorial voice is strongly negative, using derogatory language and foregrounding failures and controversies.

• factual reporting of events and statements
• occasional critical framing of government actions
• no consistent evaluative language toward Italy as entity

Headlines cover a wide range of topics (politics, crime, sports, culture) with no unified stance toward Italy. Some headlines (e.g., 14, 23) are critical of the government, but others are neutral or positive. The entity is the country, not a specific government or leader, so stance is inherently diffuse.

• foregrounds scandals and controversies involving US figures
• uses distancing or negative framing for Trump administration actions
• highlights internal US political conflict and dysfunction
• quotes US officials with critical context or as antagonists

The entity is 'US' as a country, not a single administration; coverage is mixed between factual reporting on US government actions and critical framing of Trump-era policies and scandals. Some headlines (e.g., 14, 23) are neutral or unrelated to stance. The overall tone leans skeptical, especially toward the Trump administration, but not uniformly hostile.

• frames Meloni as politically isolated or embarrassed
• uses distancing verbs like 'attacca' and 'spinge'
• highlights opposition criticism and internal tensions
• reports her actions with skeptical framing

Several headlines report Meloni's statements neutrally or as authoritative (e.g., 11, 20, 23), but the overall selection emphasizes her difficulties, opposition attacks, and questionable moves, yielding a mildly critical stance.

• frames Epstein as the center of a vast criminal scandal
• uses language of suspicion and cover-up (sospetti, insabbiamento)
• highlights ongoing investigations and consequences for associates
• references to 'suicide' and 'dubbi' imply foul play

The outlet's stance is clearly negative toward Epstein, treating him as a criminal figure whose death is suspicious and whose network is being exposed. No positive or neutral framing appears.

• Zelensky quoted directly without distancing verbs
• Ukrainian civilian casualties reported as facts
• Headlines mix Ukrainian and Russian perspectives equally
• No evaluative adjectives toward Ukraine as entity

Headlines are predominantly factual updates on war events; Zelensky is quoted directly (authoritative) but the outlet also gives space to Russian and US voices. No clear positive or negative editorial stance toward Ukraine as a country; the coverage is balanced and event-driven.

• distancing verbs like 'avverte' (warns) and 'Putin al bivio' (at a crossroads) implying difficulty
• negative framing of Russia's actions (e.g., 'attacco russo', 'ucciso col veleno')
• quoting critics or opponents (Navalny, Macron, Schlein) without balancing Russian perspective
• use of 'bufera' (storm) and 'teorema' (theorem) to delegitimize pro-Putin statements

Several headlines are neutral news summaries of war developments, but the outlet consistently selects negative angles (attacks, nuclear warnings, economic troubles) and quotes Western officials more sympathetically than Russian ones. Headline 14 shows Trump 'gela Putin' (freezes Putin out), framing Putin as rebuffed. Overall stance is skeptical/critical, not outright hostile.

• reports Macron's statements without evaluative adjectives
• uses neutral attribution verbs like 'attacca' and 'invita'
• includes headlines that highlight diplomatic tensions with Italy
• covers both political actions and domestic incidents without consistent slant

Headlines 4 and 5 show Macron in a confrontational role with Italy, but the outlet does not use delegitimising language toward France or Macron; coverage is largely factual. The entity is a country, not a single actor, so stance is assessed toward France as a whole; most headlines are neutral or mixed.