News that Newt Gingrich was receiving millions of dollars to advise Freddie Mac has to be a little unsettling for at least some conservative voters, who are accustomed to demonizing the government-sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for causing the housing bubble, and hence the recession.

But it's not just right-wing pundits like Bill O'Reilly who are fond of blaming it all on Fannie and Freddie. Here's ABC reporter Jonathan Karl, speaking in conservative shorthand in his job as network news correspondent on This Week yesterday:

Meet this week's new front-runner. He's a good debater, man of ideas, and now Newt Gingrich is riding high in the polls, which means now the spotlight turns to all his baggage. Exhibit A: the nearly $2 million he got from Freddie Mac, a government-backed mortgage company that made so many bad loans, it helped bring the economy down.

We'll set aside the stuff about Newt Gingrich, Man of Ideas (his most recent one involving having poor children replace janitors at their schools).

The more important question: Did Freddie Mac make the bad loans that crashed the economy?

No. You can read about that here or here, among many others. (UPDATE: To be clear, Fannie/Freddie don't actually lend money to people buying homes-- as McClatchy's Kevin Hall and David Goldstein explained back in 2008).

Or read this concise explanation from Fannie/Freddie critic Dean Baker,  part of this response to a David Brooks column on this subject:

The worst junk mortgages that inflated the housing bubble to extraordinary levels were not bought and securitized by Fannie and Freddie, they were securitized by Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Lehman and the other private investment banks. These investment banks gobbled up the worst subprime and Alt-A garbage that sleaze operations like Ameriquest and Countrywide pushed on homebuyers.

The trillions of dollars that the geniuses at the private investment banks funneled into the housing market were the force that inflated the bubble to its 2006 peaks. Fannie and Freddie were followers in this story, jumping into the subprime and Alt-A market in 2005 to try to maintain market share. They were not the leaders.

So why is conservative mythology being treated as if it were fact by Jonathan Karl? Because that's what he does.

The New York Times had a headline on Saturday that read, "Imagining a Christie Campaign for President."

That seems appropriate--if we're talking about how it's the corporate media doing the imagining.

On ABC's This Week (10/2/11), Jonathan Karl announced that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's speech at the Reagan Library "was  the most electrifying event of the campaign so far."

That speech was treated like a big event on the NBC Nightly News (9/28/11), with anchor Brian Williams saying up front that Christie is  "the man whose every word is being watched and listened to so very carefully." Reporter Chuck Todd--you know, the voice of the voiceless--explains that there is a "twist" in the presidential race:  "Chris Christie opened the door a crack to running for president."

What does that mean? Apparently he didn't say he's not running:

It's what New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie did not say at the Reagan Library Tuesday night that froze the Republican presidential race in place. He didn't say no.

In the NBC segment, Christie tells people to go check out a Politico story--which is a compilation of all the times he's said he's not running for president. Which kind of sounds like he doesn't think he's running for president, right?

And if that doesn't convince you, surely this will:

TODD: But when an audience member pleaded with him:

Offscreen Voice #2: I mean this with all my heart. We can't wait another four years to 2016. We need you. Your country needs you to run for president.

TODD: Christie stopped joking and left an opening.

Gov. CHRISTIE: I thank you for what you're saying and I take it in and I'm listening to every word of it and feeling it, too.

TODD: Everything about Christie's speech screamed national campaign.

Everything except, you know, the part where he says he's running for president.

There's an interesting piece by Alexander Bolton in the Hill (8/3/11) that suggests Senate Democrats are frustrated by the Beltway media's tendency to cover political standoffs between the parties as situations where everyone's to blame.

Bolton writes:

This frustration boiled over during a Wednesday press conference on the partial shutdown of the Federal Aviation Administration and what Democrats call the GOP’s extortionist tactics.

The FAA had to temporarily lay off 4,000 workers because Senate Democrats and Republicans cannot agree to a reauthorization of the agency.

Democrats are angry that members of the media appear to be accepting the GOP argument that Democrats are to blame for the temporary shutdown.

Consider this moment with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and California's Sen. Barbara Boxer:

"The fact is that you’ve got to dig a little bit behind the surface here of what this is really about,” said Boxer. "Whatever the issue is, this is about government by threats, government by one side making its demands.…"

"And these folks falling for it," Reid interjected, gesturing to the reporters in the Senate radio and television gallery.

The only reporter singled out is Jonathan Karl from ABC:

When Jonathan Karl, a correspondent for ABC News, asked why Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) had blocked a short-term FAA extension offered by Republicans on the Senate floor Tuesday, Democrats lost their patience.

"There’s a certain naivety that comes with your question," said Boxer. "The story here today is the fact that our leader is reaching out to [House Speaker John] Boehner [R-Ohio] to say, 'If we want to resolve a particular issue, whatever it might be, let’s talk about it,' but not have one side say, 'Take it or leave it or people will be out of work.' And the essence of your question doesn't understand that."

If the criticism is that some reporters "accept GOP arguments," then Jonathan Karl is one of the strongest examples--see this July Extra! piece about his history of parroting GOP talking points. Or his disgraceful "false balance" report likening Tea Party activists to a USAID administrator's claim that cuts in humanitarian aid would cause deaths--a conclusion that led Karl to label him a "hothead."

I stumbled upon this ABC report not too long ago, and it seems especially timely given Huntsman's announcement today.

It's not to say that ABC was uniquely off the mark. The point is that much of what passes for political coverage-- the handicapping, the horserace, the insider chatter-- is useless.

ABC News Transcript
WORLD NEWS SATURDAY
May 16, 2009 Saturday

SURPRISE PICK; A POLITICAL MASTER STROKE

DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS):  President Barack Obama made a surprise appointment today that has both parties in Washington buzzing tonight. The President had pledged to reach across the aisle, and today, he did just that. Naming a rising star of the Republican Party to be the next ambassador to China. Utah Governor Jon Huntsman not only brings his experience to the job, he takes away a potential political threat to the Democrats. And so we begin with ABC's Jonathan Karl tonight.

JONATHAN KARL (ABC NEWS): It's a political master stroke.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (UNITED STATES): I know that Jon is the kind of leader who always puts country ahead of party.

JONATHAN KARL (ABC NEWS): President Obama has taken a rising Republican star and named him US ambassador to China. Utah's Jon Huntsman is one the most popular governors in America, just reelected in November with nearly 80% of the vote.

GOVERNOR JON HUNTSMAN (REPUBLICAN) : I stand here in my final term as governor with plenty to do. I wasn't looking for a new job in life, but a call from the President changed that. A McCain/Palin presidency.

JONATHAN KARL (ABC NEWS): Huntsman was a co-chair of John McCain's presidential campaign, but he has staked out moderate stands on immigration, climate change and gay rights. He has also warned fellow Republicans that they have to do more than just oppose Obama.

GOVERNOR JON HUNTSMAN (REPUBLICAN): You can't just say no. You can't just obstruct or obfuscate. You've got to kind of come up with some bold real solutions.

JONATHAN KARL (ABC NEWS) Governor Huntsman had been frequently mentioned as a potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate.

CLIP FROM "MEET THE PRESS"
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (REPUBLICAN): I think we've got some very good candidates, Jon Huntsman.

JONATHAN KARL (ABC NEWS): Obama's 2008 campaign manager agrees. He recently called Huntsman the one person out there who could take on Obama. But now, Huntsman will be a world away. Politics aside, Huntsman has real qualifications for the job. He served as US ambassador to Singapore, Deputy US Trade Representative, and was a top Commerce Department official for East Asia. He also has an adopted daughter from China, and speaks the language fluently.

GOVERNOR JON HUNTSMAN (REPUBLICAN): I'm reminded of my favorite Chinese aphorism, it goes something like this. (Speaking in foreign language), together we work, together we progress.

JONATHAN KARL (ABC NEWS): Going to China almost certainly takes Huntsman out of the running for the 2012 campaign, but it does not necessarily mean an end to his political ambitions. George Herbert Walker Bush served as ambassador to China during the 1970s, and that was a post that turned out to be a pretty good stepping stone on his way to the White House. David?

DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS): ABC's Jonathan Karl starting us off at the White House tonight. Jon, thank you.

We wanna turn now to our chief Washington correspondent and host of This Week, George Stephanopoulos. And George, many people see this governor as the former head of the McCain campaign. But behind this, are people viewing it in Washington as a clever move?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS): Oh, they definitely are. Jon Karl hit it right. Political master stroke. A win for President Obama. He gets one of the Republican rising stars, evidently qualified for this job to be his ambassador to one of the most important countries in the world. It is a win for Huntsman. This is, he is uniquely qualified for this job. And even though he was looking at a run in 2012, this gets him out of this internal fight in the Republican Party and out of a race that was gonna be an uphill fight for him. He'll be able to come back in 2016. And it's a blow, at least in the short term, to the Republican Party. One more sign that this is a party where the reformers, the moderates, are looking for an exit.

The roundtable panel on ABC's This Week (5/29/11) spent some time talking about the politics of Medicare, specifically the idea that the recent Democratic victory in a special Congressional election in New York could mean that Paul Ryan's Medicare plan might be a tremendous liability for the GOP.

One of the most prevalent talking points from the Republican side is to complain that while Ryan's plan might have its flaws, at least they have something--unlike the Democrats. It was a point that ABC reporter Jonathan Karl passed along as fact:

[Bill Clinton] said that I hope Democrats don't use this as an excuse to do nothing. And that is exactly what Democrats are doing right now. There is no Democratic plan on reforming Medicare; we're waiting for the president to come out with a plan. The president's old budget lost 97-0 in a vote in the Senate, so, you know, I mean--Republicans are scared. They are definitely scared. But there is nothing coming from the other side.

Most people remember a big national debate over healthcare happened not too long ago. The law that passed--the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare" to its GOP critics--included several provisions intended to control the cost of healthcare, including Medicare. This was part of the reason Republicans were screaming about "death panels."

The parts of the Affordable Care Act that pertain to shrinking the cost of Medicare have been pretty well-explained for a while now. A recent piece from the Kaiser Health News explains how the Independent Payment Advisory Board created by the law would work:

Q: What will IPAB do?

A: Beginning with fiscal 2015, if Medicare is projected to grow too quickly, the IPAB will make binding recommendations to reduce spending. Those recommendations will be sent to Capitol Hill at the beginning of each year, and if Congress doesn’t like them, it must pass alternative cuts--of the same size--by August. A supermajority of the Senate can also vote to amend the IPAB recommendations. If Congress fails to act, the secretary of Health and Human Services is required to implement the cuts by default.

This (and more) was explained in a Washington Post column by Ezra Klein in April. Igor Volsky at Think Progress wrote a post last year showing how Medicare cost containment will work. There's no shortage of information explaining how this will work now that it is law. One could argue that none of it will work, of course, but that's not the same as saying there is no plan but the Paul Ryan plan. That's what Republicans want people to believe--and reporters like Jonathan Karl are doing their best to help.

ABC reporter Jonathan Karl clarifies the budget stalemate that nearly shut down the federal government (ABC World News, 4/7/11):

KARL: And believe it or not, the issue of abortion could be what causes the government to shut down.

GRAPHICS: DEMOCRATS CLAIM

KARL: Democrats say Republicans are trying to use the funding bill to force new restrictions on abortion rights.

GRAPHICS: REPUBLICANS CLAIM

KARL: But Republicans say they are simply trying to restrict public funding of abortion.

"Democrats say, Republicans say." ABC could save money and program a computer to do this.

Later Karl said this:

Today, House Republicans did pass a bill that could keep the government funded for the next week and fund the Pentagon for the rest of the year. But Democrats say that they will oppose it. Again, Diane, because it includes restrictions on public funding of abortion.

As plenty of people have noted--see Katha Pollitt-- federal money does not go to Planned Parenthood to pay for abortion services, which constitute a very small part of the group's work. Though the Republicans would like to say that abortion is what they're fighting over, the debate is actually about funding Planned Parenthood, period.

So Jonathan Karl manages to do useless "he said, she said" reporting, and then goes on to mislead viewers about the actual issue being debated. A computer program might actually do a better job.

Corporate media's preference for "centrism" can often translate into reporting that casts two sides of a debate as equally belligerent or unwilling to compromise.  ABC reporter Jonathan Karl's report yesterday on This Week (4/3/11) offers a perfect example of the absurdity of this worldview.

His focuses was on the battle over the federal budget. On one side are Tea Party activists who want deeper spending cuts.  Karl notes that this creates some friction between the activists and GOP leaders. Then there's the other side of the debate:

KARL: Democrats have their hot heads, too. One Obama administration official said the Republican bill, which cuts $5 billion from the Agency for International Development would kill kids. That's right. Kill kids.

RAJIV SHAH, USAID ADMINISTRATOR: We estimate, and I believe these are conservative, that HR 1 would lead to 70,000 kids dying.

Karl then turns to former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean saying that Democrats could benefit from a government shutdown. Karl closes with a snide reference to the choice confronting lawmakers: "Compromise with extremists out to kill kids?"

Budget cuts have actual, real world consequences--especially when you're talking about health aid to the Third World. This is not in serious dispute. But apparently talking about those effects is a problem.

What Karl considers hot-headed extremism is Shah's claim that deaths will occur due to, among other things, cuts to USAID's anti-malaria programs. Others will die because they would lose access to life-saving medicines. Others will die at birth.

New York Times food writer Mark Bittman points out that many anti-poverty organizers have organized a fast to draw attention to the GOP budget cuts. He's joining them, and writes that some organizers are praying that God create a "circle of protection" around the world's poor and hungry.

What a bunch of hotheads.

Matthew Yglesias (8/3/10) has a good takedown of  senators John McCain (R.-Ariz.) and Tom Coburn's (R.-Ok.) list of supposedly wasteful stimulus projects that generated an "exclusive" on ABC's Good Morning America (8/3/10):

Jon Chait observes that McCain and Coburn also seem to have decided that anything relating to animals is necessarily waste. Hence a small grant to fund research on cocaine addiction and relapse is turned into "Monkeys Getting High for Science." Hardy-har-har. There's a case to be made that the government has no role to play in funding scientific research, but it's a mighty bad case. If you think the government should fund research in the health and medical fields, then of course you're going to be funding some experiments that involve monkeys. Even though monkeys are funny.

This animals-are-funny principle was followed by ABC's Jonathan Karl, who cited "among the highlights" of the McCain/Coburn press release not only the monkey study but also "nearly $1 million for the California Academy of Sciences to study exotic ants." That's doubly funny because they're bugs and they're "exotic." But the reason you would want to study exotic insects (meaning non-native) is that they're a threat to agriculture, either current or potential. Agriculture is a $36 billion-a-year industry in California--but this crucial context was ignored by ABC.

But including the context is dangerous, because it has the potential to reveal that what you're reporting is completely pointless. Karl led off his report with this example:

KARL: The Forest Service is spending more than $500,000 to replace the windows at this Mount St. Helens visitors center. It could sure use a facelift, but--

ANSWERING MACHINE: Coal Water Ridge Visitor Center is now closed.

KARL: The visitors center is closed and there's no plans to reopen it.

What an outrageous waste of taxpayer money! But then Karl follows up with this crucial bit of information: "The Forest Service told us, they are fixing it up to sell it." If that had been mentioned in the first place--"The Forest Service is spending half a million dollars to fix up a shuttered visitors center in order to sell it"--that wouldn't have sounded crazy at all; lots of homeowners make similar decisions about their property every day. But if it didn't sound crazy, it wouldn't have been a catchy way to lead off the report.

Of course, the real point of the list is not the individual items, but the general point that the whole stimulus program was a waste of money that failed to boost employment. On this economic question, ABC cites exactly one expert: John McCain, who declares of the projects he listed, "I think none of them really have any meaningful impact on creating jobs." This is the politician who declared during the 2008 campaign (Think Progress, 1/18/08), "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should."

The Congressional Budget Office (5/25/10), whose understanding of economics is somewhat more advanced, estimated that in the first quarter of this year, the stimulus bill created the equivalent of 1.8 million to 4.1 million full-time jobs. This is context that ABC could have included in its story, but chose not to--perhaps because it would have revealed that the story had no real point.

You'd think that reporting on federal budget bills costing billions of dollars would be difficult.  But it's easy, really: All you have to do is remember that budget items involving animals or unusual foods are funny.

ABC's Jonathan Karl has mastered the genre.  Reporting on the ominous spending bill (World News, 2/24/09), he declared: "The bill is supposed to fund government operations, but it includes things like more than $1 million for so-called 'Mormon crickets' in Utah, $200,000 for tattoo removal in Los Angeles and $443,000 to control beavers in Mississippi." Hee hee! Bugs are funny, as are government efforts to control agricultural pests! And the bill also mentions "beavers"--if you're in junior high, you'll probably find that particularly amusing.

You know what else is funny? Pig poop! Karl transforms it into comedy gold:

Democrat Tom Harkin put in $1.8 million for "swine odor and manure management" in Ames, Iowa. "20 million pigs in Iowa," he explained in a statement, "make odor problems a very real issue." Chuck Schumer secured $2.2 million for the Grape Genetics Center in Geneva, New York. He told us the program helps farmers produce "better hybrid grapes."

Any more comical animals or agricultural products mentioned in the bill, Karl? "Nearly $3 million for poultry and blueberry research in Georgia, courtesy of Republican Saxby Chambliss and Jack Kingston. $127,000 for 'blackbird management' in Kansas. Senator Pat Roberts says the birds cost farmers millions."

In summary: "With the exception of the period right after September 11, this bill includes the biggest increase in federal spending since 1978.* Thanks in part to the millions earmarked for blueberries, blackbirds and crickets. And it's your money."

Thanks for the informative report, Karl.

* This does not seem to be true. The bill increases the funding for a group of agencies by $31 billion.  Military spending alone increased by $44 billion in 2002, $56 billion in 2003, $51 billion in 2004, $40 billion in 2005 and $55 billion in 2008.