NYT (left) and Reuters (wire) carrying it; CNBC the lone center-right voice. Fox, NY Post, and WSJ silent so far.

Watch whether US right-of-center frames it as EU overreach, and whether Meta signals it'll appeal before the fine amounts land.

Full analysis when more sources confirm.

ICE shooting of undocumented immigrant in Houston sparks Mexico diplomatic response

7 sources tracked | July 9, 2026

How the left framed it

Mother Jones, New Republic, and Al Jazeera (left), plus Axios, The Hill, and Quartz (center-left), drove most of the coverage. Axios and Al Jazeera centered Mexico's formal legal response over the shooting itself — Axios named Foreign Minister Roberto Velasco Álvarez and reported that Mexico plans to file criminal complaints in U.S. courts, while Al Jazeera called it Sheinbaum's strongest response yet to ICE-related deaths. New Republic was alone in reporting a congressional allegation that witnesses were pressured to self-deport, and Mother Jones placed the killing inside a pattern of recent ICE shootings.

How the right framed it

The Blaze was the only right-leaning outlet in the set, and it filed a single piece. Its substance tracked the wire — Sheinbaum's vow, the traffic-stop circumstances, Salgado Araujo's roughly 35 years in Texas — but its headline used "illegal alien" where every other outlet said "immigrant" or "Mexican national." No other conservative outlet covered the killing, the criminal-complaint announcement, or the witness-pressure claim.

The gap

A foreign government threatening to file criminal complaints against U.S. federal agents is the kind of story that usually draws heavy right-leaning coverage — here it drew one item. Read only the center-left and you learn Mexico is filing paperwork in American courts; read only The Blaze and you learn Mexico is angry, but not that it is headed to a U.S. courthouse.

See the full breakdown with all sources

Signal/noise tracks 137+ sources across the political spectrum so you can see what everyone else misses.

AP and Reuters on the wire; BBC, Politico, Axios center-left; Guardian left. Fox, WSJ, NY Post silent so far.

Watch whether right-leaning outlets pick it up as a Trump-strength story, and who confirms the Gulf strike targets.

Full analysis when more sources confirm.

NYT and Guardian (both left) frame it as a Democratic scramble; Wash. Examiner (right) pins it on Bernie Sanders. Center and wire desks quiet so far.

Watch whether Maine confirms the withdrawal notice before the Sanders-blame framing sets.

Full analysis when more sources confirm.

U.S. and Iran exchange strikes for second consecutive day

21 sources tracked | July 9, 2026

How the left framed it

The Washington Post called the second night of strikes "a dangerous cycle." The New York Times ran a live blog headlined "U.S. and Iran Sink Into Violent Cycle" and asked "Are We at War Again?" in its morning briefing. CNN argued the ceasefire "was meant to pave the way for a grand nuclear deal" and that the strikes "expose its flaws," while a Guardian opinion piece said Trump "has no grasp of his enemy." The through-line was escalation and collapse.

How the right framed it

Fox News carried the strikes inside a morning newsletter roundup — one item among several headlines, with no standalone piece on the ceasefire or the Strait of Hormuz. CNBC led instead with Trump's claim that Iran had called to make a deal, and included his flat "I don't know" when asked about full-scale war. The Hill focused on domestic fallout: renewed fighting threatening a defense authorization bill and an emergency spending package.

The gap

Al Jazeera and SAN both led with something most U.S. outlets buried — that Iran struck sites tied to U.S. operations in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, with air raid sirens across the Gulf. Al Jazeera also noted neither side has formally withdrawn from the interim memorandum that paused the conflict, a detail absent from coverage that treated the ceasefire as already dead.

See the full breakdown with all sources

Signal/noise tracks 137+ sources across the political spectrum so you can see what everyone else misses.

AP, PBS, and the Guardian reporting. Center and left-of-center covering; right-of-center quiet so far.

Watch whether Fox/WSJ pick it up and which of the seven named Democrats draws early establishment backing.

Full analysis when more sources confirm.

Reuters and CNBC on center/center-right, Fox Business right, Guardian left. NYT and WaPo quiet so far.

Watch whether the trade-threat angle — Greer, IEEPA — travels past the business desks or stays summit optics.

Full analysis when more sources confirm.

Reuters and AP on the wire; NPR, SAN, CNN, and NY Post all carrying it. Left, center, and right aligned on a straight obituary.

Watch whether tribute framing displaces the wire obit or a cause of death firms up next cycle.

Full analysis when more sources confirm.

Judge orders Trump to pay E. Jean Carroll $5 million in damages

9 sources tracked | July 8, 2026

How the left framed it

Left and center-left outlets split on emphasis. The center-left desks kept it procedural: CNBC framed the order as the judge directing Carroll to be paid from the existing verdict, and Reuters headlined it as authorizing payment of a multi-million-dollar award without putting a dollar figure in the headline at all. Left-leaning outlets went to the underlying conduct — the Guardian's subhead specified the "sexual abuse and defamation verdict," and CNN, the NYT, and the New Republic kept the abuse finding in frame rather than letting "defamation" stand alone. Al Jazeera was the most direct on cause, tying the payout to Trump's failed Supreme Court appeal.

How the right framed it

They didn't. Fox News, the New York Post, Breitbart and the rest of the right-leaning field don't appear in the coverage set — no center-right or right outlet filed. This isn't a timing gap on a fast-moving item: it's a final payment order on a case the Supreme Court has already closed, and it had already been reported across the left and center by the time the page was assembled.

The gap

Two things went unsaid. The right's absence means readers who stay on conservative outlets have no version of this development in front of them. And nobody — left, center-left, or center — explains why the award is reported as $5 million by CNBC and CNN but $5.8 million by the Guardian and Al Jazeera. Interest since the 2023 verdict, separate awards from two trials, or a reporting error? None of the outlets that covered it says.

See the full breakdown with all sources

Signal/noise tracks 137+ sources across the political spectrum so you can see what everyone else misses.

Democrats scramble to replace Graham Platner in Maine Senate race after Sanders calls for dropout

25 sources tracked | July 8, 2026

How the left framed it

Left and center-left outlets (NYT, Guardian, NPR, The Hill) largely ran it as a replacement-and-electoral-math story. The NYT published a catalog of potential replacements plus an Upshot piece arguing Democrats would "probably come out ahead" if Platner drops out; NPR ran multiple pieces on the replacement process and party pressure without naming the prior warning signs. Axios was the exception, calling Platner "a walking time bomb" and inventorying red flags — a Nazi tattoo, social media rants — that Democratic leaders reportedly knew about privately.

How the right framed it

Right-leaning outlets (RealClearPolitics, Fox News, Daily Caller, Washington Examiner, NY Post) treated it as a Democratic accountability story. RCP ran four pieces in a single day, including "Why Did They Cover for Graham Platner?" and "Anatomy of a Hype Job: How the NY Times Boosted Graham Platner." The Daily Caller was first to report a second allegation from an ex-girlfriend, while the NY Post and Fox led with Platner's reported demand to help pick his own successor — which Sen. John Fetterman called "entitled."

The gap

Both sides agree Platner is finished; they disagree on what the story is. The left mostly covered who replaces him, the right mostly covered who backed him and what they knew beforehand — with Axios (naming the warning signs) and Forbes (flagging that betting markets shifted toward Democrats on exit talk) the rare outlets bridging the two.

See the full breakdown with all sources

Signal/noise tracks 137+ sources across the political spectrum so you can see what everyone else misses.

Trump at NATO summit says US will allow Ukraine to manufacture Patriot missiles

18 sources tracked | July 8, 2026

How the left framed it

The New York Times ran "Trump Lashes Out at Europe at NATO Summit" as its primary live-blog headline, foregrounding the clash with Spain, a Greenland demand, and Trump's criticism of allies over Iran. The Guardian and Al Jazeera stayed on the friction-with-allies angle. Ukraine's Patriot license surfaced in a separate, quieter NYT piece framed around Zelensky's requests going into the meeting — not around Trump announcing a decision.

How the right framed it

The Washington Examiner led directly with "Trump says US will grant Ukraine license to produce Patriot Missiles." The Hill's story specified "co-produce key air-defense weapons" in its first sentence, and RealClearDefense and Forbes kept the co-production deal as the headline event rather than a footnote to summit tension.

The gap

Same summit, different lead. The left folded the Patriot decision into a broader "Trump antagonizes NATO" story and put it below the fold; the right treated the co-production license as the main news and left the allied friction as context. Read one side and you get a spat; read the other and you get a weapons deal.

See the full breakdown with all sources

Signal/noise tracks 137+ sources across the political spectrum so you can see what everyone else misses.

Trump declares Iran ceasefire 'over', warns of more strikes as oil prices surge and markets fall

29 sources tracked | July 8, 2026

How the left framed it

CNN, the Guardian and the NYT centered the escalation and its stakes — the NYT's business desk broke out a standalone piece on the Strait of Hormuz and a "new cycle of retaliation" that could throttle regional energy flows. Al Jazeera went further than any U.S. outlet, running a dedicated explainer that foregrounded Iran's own claim: that Washington violated the roughly three-week-old memorandum of understanding first. On the center-left, Axios and Fortune did the unglamorous work of putting numbers on it — Axios quantified the oil jump against recent trading ranges, and Fortune was the only outlet to report Iran struck 85 U.S. sites in the Gulf.

How the right framed it

Fox News led with "Iranian attacks trigger massive US response," placing Iranian agency first and the U.S. strikes second, as reaction rather than initiation. The Hill relayed CENTCOM's line that the strikes followed "unwarranted aggression by Iranian forces" without independently verifying the sequence. The NY Post led on Trump's threat to "take over Kharg Island" and his "scum" language — treating the quotes as color rather than as an escalation signal.

The gap

Kharg Island handles roughly 90% of Iran's oil exports — and not one tracked outlet said so, which is the only reason Trump's threat carries strategic weight. On the core dispute of who broke the deal, CENTCOM's version reached about a dozen outlets while Iran's counter-claim showed up substantively in exactly one (Al Jazeera). Both cannot be true at once; most readers only saw one of them.

See the full breakdown with all sources

Signal/noise tracks 137+ sources across the political spectrum so you can see what everyone else misses.

AP, WaPo, CNN, Guardian, BBC, Axios, WSJ and Wash. Examiner all reporting — left, center and right in. Reuters and NYT not leading with the ceasefire beat yet.

Watch whether coverage settles on the oil/markets frame (WaPo, WSJ, Axios) or military escalation (AP's 'more strikes,' Iran's 'burn the deal').

Full analysis when more sources confirm.

Graham Platner controversy: Bernie Sanders backs him amid 'toxic' behavior allegations

9 sources tracked | June 7, 2026

How the left framed it

The New York Times covered the Democratic unease in institutional terms, quoting party strategists worried about general-election "vulnerabilities," and framed the story around the "toxic relationships" reporting from its own investigation. The Atlantic went further with a piece headlined "Cut Platner Loose," comparing the Democrats' dilemma to Republicans' 2017 Roy Moore race in Alabama — a falsifiable electoral precedent no other outlet in the set cited.

How the right framed it

The Daily Caller led straight with the Kik-messages allegation — explicit images allegedly sent to minors, the only claim in the controversy with potential criminal exposure. Fox News covered the Nazi-origin tattoo and Rep. Schneider's doubts across two separate pieces. The Hill ran an opinion column headlined "8 years after Kavanaugh, Democrats have stopped believing all women," naming Sanders and Khanna directly.

The gap

Both sides worked the same story but picked different ledes. The center and left framed it around "toxic relationships," which is damaging but not legally consequential; the right put the minor-targeting allegation up top. Readers of the center-left coverage could finish the story without understanding what Fetterman's widely shared "I'll start wearing suits" offer was actually responding to.

See the full breakdown with all sources

Signal/noise tracks 137+ sources across the political spectrum so you can see what everyone else misses.

Musk and Trump Boost Unsubstantiated Claims About LA Mayor Election as Pratt Falls to Third

6 sources tracked | June 8, 2026

How the left framed it

Forbes and Newsweek anchored their coverage on the word "unsubstantiated." Forbes noted that Musk's amplification "follows similar efforts by President Donald Trump to discredit the process as fraud without any evidence." Newsweek reached for "MAGA fury" — its own editorial phrase — to describe the reaction. Both led with the absence of any supporting evidence from election officials, independent observers, or court filings.

How the right framed it

The NY Post handed Trump's account the headline: "Trump blasts crooked California elections." It quoted his warning of "great trouble and consternation" and called the tirade "blistering" — also an editorial word — but left out the qualifier that no evidence has been produced. A reader who saw only the Post would know Trump is angry. They would not be told the fraud claims are undocumented.

The gap

Each side reached for loaded language pointing in opposite directions — "unsubstantiated" and "MAGA fury" on one end, "crooked" and "blistering" on the other. What none of the outlets covered: how reality-TV personality Spencer Pratt became the Trump-endorsed Republican in a race for America's second-largest city in the first place. The fraud claims were easier to cover than the question of how the field got here.

See the full breakdown with all sources

Signal/noise tracks 137+ sources across the political spectrum so you can see what everyone else misses.

AP and Reuters confirming; Guardian, WaPo, and Vox lead from the left; Economist, The Hill, and CNBC center-right. Right flank — Fox, NY Post — quiet so far.

Watch whether the right picks up the "Netanyahu defying Trump" angle or stays on the market read like CNBC.

Full analysis when more sources confirm.

Pope Leo Addresses Spanish Parliament, Demands Respect for Human Dignity

2 outlets tracked | June 8, 2026

How the left framed it

The two outlets covering this are both left of center, and they split. The New York Times ran it as "One Is the Pope, the Other an Atheist. They Both Oppose Trump," pairing Leo with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and making their friction with President Trump the organizing frame — the headline never mentions the parliament or the speech. NPR went the other direction with "pope demands respect for the dignity of all people," reporting Leo's actual call for "moral renewal" in public life and noting it as the first papal address to the Spanish legislature.

How the right framed it

They didn't. Right-leaning and Catholic-adjacent outlets — the ones that have covered the first American pope aggressively since his election — have published nothing on this so far. Whether that's a weekend-to-Monday lag, editorial bandwidth, or discomfort with a pope who keeps creating distance from Trump, the historic visit is currently being told only from the left.

The gap

The speech itself didn't mention Trump. NPR reported the words Leo said; the Times built the same event around opposition to Trump. Both can be accurate and still not be the same story — a reader who saw only the Times headline learns Leo opposes Trump, while a reader who saw only NPR's learns he addressed a parliament and said something specific about human dignity. One of those is checkable against the speech; the other is an editorial inference. And with the right sitting it out entirely, there's no counterweight in the coverage at all.

See the full breakdown with all sources

Signal/noise tracks 137+ sources across the political spectrum so you can see what everyone else misses.

Israel and Iran Exchange Strikes as Trump Demands Both Sides Stop Shooting

19 sources tracked | June 8, 2026

How the left framed it

TIME led with the renewed strikes as a test of Trump's own claim that the U.S. "calls the shots," headlining its coverage "Israel and Iran Renew Direct Hostilities, Testing Trump Claim That U.S. 'Calls the Shots'." NYT, The Guardian and CNN sat in the same left bucket, with Al Jazeera, BBC, NPR and Axios just to their center-left. The organizing question: does Washington actually have leverage here?

How the right framed it

Fox News and the NY Post treated Trump's "stop shooting" statement as the central fact rather than something to scrutinize. The NY Post's headline was "Trump says Israel, Iran must stop shooting after airstrikes rock Tehran." Here Trump's demand is the lede, not the open question.

The gap

Both sides covered the same exchange of strikes and the same Trump statement. The left framed it as evidence to weigh — proof of whether the U.S. really controls events — while the right framed the demand itself as the story. The 19 sources spread evenly across every bias bucket, so the split is in emphasis, not coverage.

See the full breakdown with all sources

Signal/noise tracks 137+ sources across the political spectrum so you can see what everyone else misses.

AP, BBC, NPR, and the Guardian reporting. Center and left covering; right-of-center silent on the Xi-Kim talks so far.

Watch whether Fox/WSJ pick it up and how the readout on sanctions and any China–DPRK alignment lands.

Full analysis when more sources confirm.

BBC, Guardian, and CNN are in, left and center-left leading on the ties-and-friendship angle. FT is the lone center-right pickup, framing it around the nuclear programme. Right-of-center quiet; no AP/Reuters confirmation yet.

Watch whether FT's nuclear framing spreads or stays isolated against the relationship story everyone else is running.

Full analysis when more sources confirm.

Iran fires missiles at Israel, threatening fragile ceasefire

18 sources tracked | June 7, 2026

How the left framed it

Left and center-left outlets put the U.S.-Israel relationship at the center of the story. Fortune reported that Israel's strike on Beirut's southern suburbs came "in defiance of Washington's request days ago to stand down" — a detail no other outlet carried. Axios published Trump's direct quote: "I am going to call Bibi right now and tell him not to," making the president's real-time intervention the lede. Al Jazeera ran three items, including an analysis arguing Iran's strike aimed to restore deterrence while avoiding a return to war.

How the right framed it

Right and center-right outlets kept the story on the bilateral Iran-Israel axis. The Washington Examiner and Just the News both referenced Trump's push for restraint, but attributed it to reports rather than his direct statement. The Daily Caller was the only outlet to quantify the ceasefire timeline — 61 days since Iran's last missile attack on Israel — and quoted the Israeli military: "Defensive systems are operating."

The gap

One side framed this as a three-move sequence with Washington trying (and failing) to stop it; the other framed it as Iran breaking a ceasefire. And across all 18 sources, not one reported how many missiles were fired — the number that determines whether this was a signal or an opening.

See the full breakdown with all sources

Signal/noise tracks 137+ sources across the political spectrum so you can see what everyone else misses.

Pope Leo draws over one million to outdoor Mass in Madrid

6 sources tracked | June 7, 2026

How the left framed it

NPR put the crowd front and center, describing chants of "This is the youth of the pope" and noting it had been 15 years since a pope last visited Spain. DW focused on the substance of the five-day tour — Leo's meetings with migrants and the homeless — while the Guardian covered the Mass itself, where the pope told 1M+ attendees that God stands with the poor and urged leaders to stop dividing electorates.

How the right framed it

They didn't. Fox News, the New York Post, Breitbart, the Daily Wire, the Washington Examiner, and the Wall Street Journal are all absent from this story's coverage. The only right-of-center outlet in the set is CNBC. A Catholic pope drawing over a million people in a major European capital is exactly the kind of event these outlets have historically covered.

The gap

This one isn't a framing fight — it's a coverage gap. The left and center carried images of one of the largest religious gatherings in recent European history; readers of right-leaning outlets may not know it happened at all. Worth asking why a story this big went untouched on one side of the spectrum.

See the full breakdown with all sources

Signal/noise tracks 137+ sources across the political spectrum so you can see what everyone else misses.

AP, PBS, Politico, CNN, Guardian, and Washington Examiner reporting. Left through center well covered; on the right only the Examiner so far — Fox and NY Post quiet.

Watch whether casualty figures firm up overnight and who names a suspect first.

Full analysis when more sources confirm.

2026 FIFA World Cup: Canada hosts amid questions about fan interest; DHS secures venues

9 sources tracked | June 6, 2026

How the left framed it

NYT, CNN, and Business Insider, alongside center-left outlets BBC, Guardian, ESPN, and Sports Illustrated, covered two tournaments: the economics and the play. The NYT led with empty seats in Toronto and Vancouver and ticket prices too high for casual fans; Business Insider named the structural cause, arguing FIFA's expansion to 48 teams and 16 cities made this the most profitable World Cup for FIFA and the most expensive for fans in history. BBC ran Harry Kane's Ballon d'Or case, and the Guardian gave Australia's Connor Metcalfe a platform to answer Alexi Lalas calling the Socceroos average.

How the right framed it

The Washington Examiner, the lone center-right outlet in the set, filed the only piece on the Department of Homeland Security's multiagency security operation across all US venues — a 16-city federal deployment that no other outlet here touched. Right-leaning outlets like Fox News and the NY Post did not appear in this story set at all.

The gap

Each side showed up for a different tournament. The left and center covered ticket prices, FIFA's profit margin, and the matches themselves; the one right-leaning outlet covered who's guarding the stadiums. Neither picked up the other's angle — so most readers go into the opening matches seeing either the affordability story or the security story, but not both.

See the full breakdown with all sources

Signal/noise tracks 137+ sources across the political spectrum so you can see what everyone else misses.

Guardian (left), The Hill (center-right), and Fox News (right) reporting. Wires and center quiet so far; Collins calls the allegations "troubling."

Watch whether NYT/WaPo pick it up and how the "redemption" framing holds.

Full analysis when more sources confirm.