Seven weeks from the midterms, the Supreme Court rejects Trump's mail-in voting restrictions
the same fact, two accounts
this subject is more divergent than 95% of the subjects analysed
AustraliaCanberra is particularly taking note of Donald Trump's unprecedented attack on his own Supreme Court, more so than the legal details of the ruling that blocks his restrictions on mail-in voting.
What each one tells
same framing
BelgiumBrussels is first taking note of the political setback inflicted on Donald Trump, seven weeks before the midterms where his majority is already fragile, more than the strict issue of electoral law.
- Australia
focused on the presidential reaction
the narrative devotes most of the space to Donald Trump's statement rather than the Court's reasoning.
Omission of the dissenting motives
the articles name the two dissenting judges without developing their motives.
What the account puts first
Belgiumfocused on Trump's anger
an entire article is devoted to his reaction, with lengthy quotes, without an equivalent reaction from another Republican official.
Emphasis on a advocacy group for voting rights
the narrative relays the reaction of the ACLU without citing an equivalent conservative organization.
- Australia
Reliance on the executive's statement
the defense of the presidential attack by the Attorney General occupies a notable place in the narrative.
What it leans on
Australia onlyBelgiumthis perspective does not carry this information
and the figures
this press does not report this figure
Vote count of judges
majority votes out of 9
this press does not report this figure
this press does not report this figure
Share of mail-in votes
% of voters
only one reports itnearly a third of American voters