But there is another side to the art of the frame.
In "Khashoggi’s Disappearance Puts Kushner’s Bet on Saudi Crown Prince at Risk", NYT reporters show that they do not understand the vulnerability of their outdated journalistic standards to inadvertent framing that they employ. If you try too hard to be "objective" to avoid framing as illegitimate, you create a frame of legitimacy.
Anyone who has paid attention to the emerging story of the Trump administration and the relationship with repressive regimes comes to the story with the following perspective:
Authoritarians have felt emboldened to ratchet up their authoritarian behavior with Trump in the White House, especially those who feel close to him. Putin seems to be murdering political opponents with greater frequency and brazenness. That includes his stated enemies in the press.
The Trumps have not hesitated to use their position for personal financial gain. In fact, personal financial gain appears to be the primary goal. So it would not be surprising if the Trump administration would use Kushner's title of negotiator of peace in the Middle East as a cover for business initiatives aimed at financial gains for the Trumps.
In the NYT story about the relationship between Kushner and the Saudi Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, the writers apply a journalistic standard peculiar to the Times that says - anything germane to the story that has not been proved with verified evidence beyond a reasonable doubt should be completely omitted from the story lest the reader be left with a false impression.
By not providing this context - suspicions that a reasonable person may have - in this case, the fact that a strong personal and business relationship between the Trumps and the Saudi Royal Family, has emboldened Bin Salman to murder Khashoggi, (after all, the non-propaganda press in general and the Washington Post in particular have been designated enemies of Trump) the NYT frames the story more as a Saudi scandal that may damage Kushner's foreign policy"bet". So we are not talking about a family that has run a widespread corrupt business enterprise for years, evading taxes, most likely money laundering, and so on. No, we are talking about Jared Kushner, a young man like Bin Salman, who is interested in peace in he Middle East. Never mind stories like this:
Saudi Arabia's crown prince reportedly bragged about having Jared Kushner 'in his pocket' after being told classified information meant for Trump
Top Trump fundraisers who sought to negotiate $1 billion in business deals with Middle East princes called Jared Kushner a 'Clown Prince'
which includes the line: "And US officials told The Washington Post in February that UAE officials had discussed ways to manipulate Kushner using his "complex business arrangements, financial difficulties, and lack of foreign-policy experience" as leverage."
Even today's WaPo, in a story - Crown prince sought to lure Khashoggi back to Saudi Arabia and detain him, U.S. intercepts show - focused not on the relationship between Kushner and Khashoggi, but on the man's disappearance, includes the following line:
"Kushner’s relationship with Mohammed, known within national security agencies by the initials MBS, has long been the subject of suspicion by some American intelligence officials."
The frame of the Times story is clear. This is a legitimate presidential administration and Jared Kushner is a legitimate Middle East negotiator, not someone who is badly compromised. Nothing in the story talks about Kushner's inability to obtain a security clearance (other than by father-in-law fiat.)
Based on the actions and inaction of this administration over the past two years, a reasonable person would now conclude that members of Congress will raise a stink over this murder of a dual American/Saudi citizen who worked for the Washington Post, but the Trumps will do nothing while calculating just how much they need to keep up appearances that they care or are willing to do something.
How soon will Trump use his infantile Russian technique - " I am tough on the Saudis. Hillary was always easy on the Saudis".
And why not? It works every time, because every statement Trump makes, instead of being immediately identified as a weapon of deception, is instead treated as a possible statement of fact that needs to be accepted as possibly true (thus sustaining the frame of possible truthfulness), and made subject to fact checking (as a first step into the wilderness of confusion) along with comparisons to Obama or Clinton (thus locking the door on any meaningful understanding with the death knell of false balance).