O Globo · July 2026

• Frequent use of 'Governo Lula' as neutral institutional label
• Headlines often report Lula's actions and decisions without evaluative adjectives
• Some headlines highlight Lula's strategic competence and electoral strength
• Occasional critical framing via 'evita embate' or 'driblar resistência'

Coverage is largely neutral and factual, but the outlet frequently presents Lula as a decisive actor and cites polls favorable to him. Some headlines (e.g., #4, #10) imply tactical maneuvering, which slightly tempers positivity. No hostile or delegitimizing language detected.

• reports internal party criticism and strategic errors by Bolsonaro allies
• highlights legal troubles, restrictions, and investigations
• uses neutral verbs but selects negative framing (e.g., 'desestabilizou', 'insensível')
• focuses on campaign dysfunction and family disputes

Most headlines concern Flávio Bolsonaro, not Jair directly; Jair appears mainly in legal/restriction contexts and as a liability for Flávio's campaign. The outlet does not use overtly hostile language toward Jair, but the selection emphasizes setbacks and criticism from allies, yielding a mildly negative stance.

• Frames Trump's actions as aggressive or harmful (e.g., 'ameaça', 'ofensiva', 'cerco', 'retoma bloqueio')
• Uses distancing or critical framing in headlines about Trump's policies and statements
• Highlights negative consequences for Brazil and other countries (tariffs, environmental rollback)
• Occasionally neutral or factual reporting of Trump's statements and actions

The outlet often reports Trump's statements and actions factually, but the selection and framing lean critical, especially regarding tariffs, environmental rollback, and social issues. Some headlines are neutral or even amplify Trump's claims (e.g., #15), but overall the tone is skeptical of his policies and rhetoric.

• Balanced reporting on both Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro
• Uses neutral verbs and direct quotes without strong evaluative framing
• Covers campaign strategies, legal issues, and policy actions for both sides

Coverage is mixed and primarily factual; no consistent positive or negative stance toward the entity (BR) as a country. Headlines focus on political actors and events, not on the country itself.

• Frames Trump administration actions as politically motivated and retaliatory
• Highlights conflicts, threats, and negative impacts on Brazil and other countries
• Uses verbs like 'admite', 'condiciona', 'minimiza' that imply questionable conduct
• Foregrounds domestic controversies (women's rights, white supremacists, ICE operations)

The outlet's stance is toward the US as a country, but most headlines focus on the Trump administration's actions and statements. The coverage is consistently critical of US policies and their effects, but not uniformly hostile; some headlines are neutral factual reports. The entity's own statements are often quoted, but with framing that exposes contradictions or negative consequences.

• repeatedly highlights Flávio's missteps and internal criticism
• uses distancing/negative framing ('erro', 'teme', 'pressionado')
• foregrounds conflicts with allies and legal risks
• quotes Flávio defensively, often in response to accusations

Coverage is largely factual and includes some neutral reporting of Flávio's statements and actions. However, the outlet consistently selects and emphasizes Flávio's political errors, internal opposition, and legal vulnerabilities, suggesting a skeptical stance toward him. The entity's own quoted content is often defensive or combative, but the outlet's framing (e.g., 'erro', 'teme', 'pressionado') indicates critical distance rather than outright hostility.

• reports Moraes's actions as restrictive and punitive toward Bolsonaro
• includes criticism of Moraes from other actors (Fachin, STF allies, Milei)
• uses neutral verbs but highlights controversies and legal disputes
• occasionally frames Moraes as overreaching (e.g., 'erro de Moraes')

Coverage is largely factual and legalistic, but the selection and inclusion of critical voices (STF allies, Fachin, Milei) and the emphasis on restrictions and controversies tilt the stance slightly negative toward Moraes. The outlet does not use overtly hostile language, but it does not amplify Moraes's perspective favorably either.

• Frames Milei's actions as provocative and polarizing
• Highlights diplomatic conflicts and negative reactions from Brazilian officials
• Uses verbs like 'xinga' and 'acusar' to describe Milei's rhetoric
• Emphasizes backlash and criticism from various actors

The outlet reports Milei's statements and actions with a critical tone, focusing on conflicts and negative reactions, but also includes neutral or positive items (e.g., football transfer, electric cars). The entity is a foreign leader, and the coverage is largely adversarial due to diplomatic tensions with Brazil.

• reports Milei's provocations with distancing verbs ('xinga', 'acusa', 'faz discurso duro')
• foregrounds backlash from Brazilian institutions (Itamaraty, Fachin, Fundação)
• frames his actions as politically motivated ('reforçar nacionalismo e polarização')
• includes neutral/positive items (reform, Messi exchange) but they are outweighed by critical framing

The outlet does not use overtly hostile vocabulary like 'regime' or 'brutal', but it consistently highlights controversies and official rebukes, implying skepticism. Headlines 16 and 17 are neutral/positive, and headline 5 shows Milei agreeing with Messi, which is not negative. The entity's own aggressive rhetoric is reported, but the outlet's selection emphasizes the negative reactions to it.