Loading...
The Guardian · February 2026
February 2026 editorial profile for The Guardian. Below: how this outlet framed the actors and regions it covered most in February 2026. Tap any tile to jump to the detailed card.
STARMER25 titles-1Skeptical“critical and skeptical”
Patterns
- Framing Starmer as weak or in crisis (e.g., 'jellyfish', 'doormat', 'incredible shrinking Starmer')
- Emphasizing scandals and calls for resignation (e.g., Mandelson scandal, McSweeney saga)
- Using distancing or delegitimizing language (e.g., 'abandons plans', 'U-turn', 'nowhere to hide')
- Quoting critics and opponents without counterbalance
Caveats
Some headlines report Starmer's actions neutrally (e.g., appointments, policy announcements), but the overall selection heavily foregrounds crisis, unpopularity, and scandal, with opinion pieces explicitly hostile. The outlet's own voice is skeptical, not celebratory.
TRUMP25 titles-2Adversarial“consistently hostile and delegitimising”
Patterns
- associates Trump with corruption and cronyism
- frames Trump's actions as harmful or destructive
- uses negative evaluative language and quotes critics
- highlights scandals and failures
Caveats
The outlet's own editorial voice is uniformly negative; even when quoting Trump or his allies, the framing is critical. Headlines 13 and 23 are more neutral but do not offset the overall hostile stance.
Representative headlines
- →Trump has done more than harm the government’s ability to fight global heating | Jamil Smith
- →The supreme court has struck a blow to Trump’s corruption machine | David Sirota
- →A world on edge as Trump bombs Iran and triggers war in the Middle East. There was no need for this | Simon Tisdall
- →Epstein files contain explicit but unsubstantiated claim that Trump abused minor
- →Republicans and Democrats unite to condemn Trump’s attacks on allies
- →Pride flag reinstated at Stonewall after it was removed by Trump administration
- →Trump accused of ‘corruption, plain and simple’ after UAE invested in family firm
EPSTEIN25 titles-2Adversarial“consistently hostile and delegitimising”
Patterns
- frames Epstein as a criminal and sex trafficker
- focuses on his network and enablers as corrupt
- uses language of scandal, cover-up, and abuse
- highlights victims and survivors as harmed parties
Caveats
The outlet's stance is uniformly negative toward Epstein, treating him as a perpetrator of heinous crimes; no positive or neutral framing appears.
Representative headlines
United Kingdom25 titles0Reportorial“mixed, largely neutral with critical coverage of specific figures”
Patterns
- focus on domestic political scandals (Mandelson, Epstein links)
- neutral reporting of economic and policy news
- critical commentary on UK governance in opinion pieces
- no consistent positive or negative framing of the country as a whole
Caveats
The bundle covers a wide range of topics (politics, economy, crime, culture) without a unified stance toward the UK as an entity. Negative coverage is directed at specific individuals (Mandelson, Farage) and policies, not the country itself. Opinion pieces express criticism, but news reporting is largely factual. Stance is neutral because the outlet does not systematically frame the UK positively or negatively.
Representative headlines
United States25 titles-1Skeptical“critical and skeptical”
Patterns
- foregrounds Trump administration controversies and conflicts
- uses distancing or critical framing of US actions (e.g., 'attacks on allies', 'crackdown')
- highlights domestic opposition and legal/moral challenges to US policies
- includes critical quotes from US critics and foreign leaders
Caveats
The coverage focuses heavily on the Trump administration's actions and controversies, which drives a critical stance toward the US government under Trump. However, the outlet also reports on bipartisan condemnation and domestic resistance, indicating a critical but not uniformly hostile stance. The entity 'US' is treated as a government actor whose policies are scrutinized, not as a nation celebrated or delegitimized wholesale.
MANDELSON21 titles-2Adversarial“consistently hostile and delegitimising”
Patterns
- scandal framing in nearly every headline
- associates Mandelson with Epstein, police, resignation, and downfall
- uses evaluative language like 'downfall', 'fury', 'torrid', 'unforgivable'
- foregrounds negative consequences for others (Starmer, Labour)
Caveats
Headline 16 is an opinion piece calling for tougher constraints, which reinforces the negative stance. No headline presents Mandelson sympathetically or quotes him as an authoritative voice.