Newsweek cover goes "full retard!" Yeah I said it!

This cover is absolutely stunning coming from a magazine that I once thought leaned left to some degree, or at the very least was moderate. This looks like the cover of the National Review.

I would not even wipe my ass with the National Review, because my ass deserves to be treated with more respect than that.

The cover is to represent Niall Ferguson's fact free diatribe against the President, in whihc he essentially accuses Obama of everything except raping puppies.

This has brought swift and, in my opinion, completely justified blowback from the likes of Paul Krugman, who points out:  

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. 

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.

Did you get that? The article is nothing more than a Right Wing assault on Obama's policies, using obvious falsehoods to support the attacks. (Because you know the Righties are confident that Americans won't do the research to call them out on their lies.)

Gee where have we seen that before? Fucking everywhere these days that's where!

And this is from the pages of NEWSWEEK for Odin's sake!

Actually Krugman went kind of easy on Ferguson, others have also chimed in with a little more sting to their words, with one suggesting that the only right thing for Newsweek (And the Daily Beast) to do in this case is "fire his ass!"

I think that is a capital idea!  It is one thing for journalists (Or bloggers.) to get a story wrong through sloppy research or poor information, but quite another for them to PURPOSEFULLY attempt to misrepresent the facts in order to support their agenda.

And ANY news organization that finds such a "journalist" on their payroll, has a duty to remove that cancerous influence from the healthy news gathering body which surely they wish to remain.

But don't shed a tear for Niall Ferguson, we already know there is a job waiting for him over at Fox News. You know, the organization that won a lawsuit which allows them to lie to the American people. He should fit in there just fine.