This paper studies subjectivity in the Mail Online journalism with a focus on judgmental reporting from the male sphere. The Background research presents the current paradigm of what is acceptable when writing subjectively in journalism and concludes that it is acceptable and is no longer seen as the antithesis to objectivity. However, there remain rules as to what is too much subjectivity such as ‘falsehoods’. The background continues and discusses what the male sphere is, what it means to report from the male sphere, and how one must behave within this sphere to be a ‘true’ woman or ‘true’ man. The study located and categorised both Direct and Indirect Judgment from the male sphere in articles from the Mail Online. Articles about Shamima Begum and Mohammed Emwazi were chosen because of their similarities and because of the very different way reporters chose to present their stories. Locating and categorising Judgment using the framework Appraisal and Journalistic Discourse Theory worked well with the ideological focus of the male sphere. The theoretical framework allows for individual subjective utterances to be categorised as Direct Judgment as well as whole extracts to be analysed, and categorised as Indirect Judgment. The results show that in the case of Shamima Begum, negative Judgment was inferred from the male sphere in the form of Indirect Judgment which needed to be read in context. In the case of Mohammed Emwazi both positive and negative Judgment was inferred which was both Direct and Indirect. Both actor’s results directly correspond to Judgment of gendered characteristics from the ‘Male Sphere’ explained Background. This paper concludes with a discussion of the judgments from the male sphere of both actors with examples from the extracts, finishing with limitations of the study and future research considerations.