Foxtacular Framing Friday: Pop quiz

If you can't have content-analytic freaky fun on Foxtacular Framing Friday, you just aren't trying:
∞ If that person in Baghdad is a "homicide bomber," shouldn't we say the Omaha mall gunperson left a "homicide note"?
∞ In a hed like "Ex-mistress may now vote for Sen. Clinton," what does "ex-mistress" mean? Can something that isn't in the sentence fill in as the object of the missing prepositional phrase?(Compare, for example, "Ex-coach may now cheer for team.") And doesn't Fox usually use italic emphasis for PC Run Amok heds, rather than What Will They Think Of Next?

But on to the quiz! Today's project involves inductive category-building: Instead of imposing frame categories from outside on Fox content, we're going to see if Fox content can't generate its own frames. What overall storytelling category is the best fit for this story? Here are some you can consider:

Partisan (a story about a conflict between the Bush party and some other political entity)
Nationalist (a story about an affront to the United States)
Tabloid (a story that intends to deliver information through an appeal to emotion rather than intellect)

What potential problems would you identify with those frames? Is there a better frame to capture the implications of "Despite U.S. report ...."? Could this text generate other frames to be used in comparing Fox World to other "worlds" portrayed in news accounts? Could these frames be used to analyze BBC content? Explain, and support with examples.