Posted on 08/20/2012 9:29:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
NewsBusters reported Sunday that Newsweek is out with a truly shocking edition featuring a cover story entitled "Hit the Road, Barack: Why We Need a New President."
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman took to his blog Sunday excoriating the article in a piece he called "Unethical Commentary, Newsweek Edition":
There are multiple errors and misrepresentations in Niall Ferguson’s cover story in Newsweek — I guess they don’t do fact-checking — but this is the one that jumped out at me. Ferguson says:
The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.
Readers are no doubt meant to interpret this as saying that CBO found that the Act will increase the deficit. But anyone who actually read, or even skimmed, the CBO report (pdf) knows that it found that the ACA would reduce, not increase, the deficit — because the insurance subsidies were fully paid for.
Please notice that the CBO report Krugman linked to is from March 30, 2011.
What he failed to inform his readers is the CBO revised these numbers in a March 13, 2012, report finding "the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period."
Yet the Time columnist had the nerve to attack Ferguson:
Now, people on the right like to argue that the CBO was wrong. But that’s not the argument Ferguson is making — he is deliberately misleading readers, conveying the impression that the CBO had actually rejected Obama’s claim that health reform is deficit-neutral, when in fact the opposite is true.
Really, Paul? Who's "deliberately misleading readers?"
What’s a “Krugman?”
A Krugman is similar to a Klugman which is also an Oscar both of which are very sloppy.
But the anti Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanan covers were of course, ethical.
I happened to catch Glen Beck this morning talking about this article. He seems to think it’s NewsWeak’s attempt to star relevant. They’ve been fawning over Baraq like love sick school girls for 4 years, all the while they’ve been circling the drain. Now they do an anti-0bama piece just to give the appearance of objectivity. I’m with Beck, I don’t buy it.
I took one just this morning -- and then I flushed it.
It’s a form of venereal disease.
And, what does a Krugman know about ethics?
Yet Krygman would have nothing to say when Bush and than Palin were treated to the most scurrilous and in many cases unethicial attacks by the left and his ilk......
Paul Krugman is a pompous gasbag but he must keep the red meat coming for his moon bat readers at the NYT’s to keep him employed...
He and Yassar Arafat have two things in common, both won Nobel prizes and both take it up the arse...at least that’s what I heard from Harry Reid...
If there's anyone out there who really believes this, give me a call...I have a bridge for sale.
Yep, this is their innoculation for the next weeks’ issues lauding 0bama all the way up to the election.
C'mon,pal...you've gotta keep up with current events.There was a "Krugman" who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize a few years ago.
Something that will make your azaleas bloom.
Stepping up to the mic: Rev. Al and the Reverend (ahh) Jackssunnnnd in 5...4...3...2...
Didn’t we learn a couple of years ago that Newsweak puts different cover photos on for different world locations?
Weren’t they the ones who had an American flag in the trash can EXCEPT for US publication?
Why, YES, they did.
Who gets to see THIS cover with Hussien leaving?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.