Slog
News & ArtsMonday, August 20, 2012
2012 / Media Newsweek, Now Trolling Liberal America
Posted by Eli Sanders on Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:00 AM
Niall Ferguson's cover story on "Why Obama Needs to Go" is, naturally, racking up the online reactions.
It also contains "multiple errors and misrepresentations," according to Paul Krugman, who calls the piece an exercise in "unethical commentary."
Krugman continues, outlining what he calls a false Ferguson claim regarding health care reform's effect on the national deficit:
We’re not talking about ideology or even economic analysis here — just a plain misrepresentation of the facts, with an august publication letting itself be used to misinform readers. The Times would require an abject correction if something like that slipped through. Will Newsweek?
We'll see.
2
An author and a publication both screaming for relevance in a world that is swiftly leaving them both behind. In the near future, Newsweek will be no more, and Mr. Ferguson can go back to whoring himself out to right-wing institutions.
3
I was going to skim through that to see if it made a case FOR Romney (as opposed to against Obama, which is both the obvious main thrust as well as the only case anyone's made for Romney), but I can't stand the way mainstream magazines parse out articles over five or more web pages.
5
@4 lol, what? The author is one of John McCain's friends and a hardcore financial conservative and cheerleader for the multinational business world and a devoted ultra libertarian. And Tina Brown goes after everyone.
8
Ah the author is just another neocon shitbag.
anyway...
same foreign policies as Bush
economy not getting better
BUT HE LIKES GAY MARRIAGE AND GOT DAT SWAG SO THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS TO ME, 4 MORE YEARS
anyway...
same foreign policies as Bush
economy not getting better
BUT HE LIKES GAY MARRIAGE AND GOT DAT SWAG SO THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS TO ME, 4 MORE YEARS
10
@8 - There was that thing with the two Supreme Court justices too.
Same foreign policy as Bush? How many nations have we invaded in Obama's first term?
Your herp is very derpy.
Same foreign policy as Bush? How many nations have we invaded in Obama's first term?
Your herp is very derpy.
11
@10
Well I don't know what to think. I wanted to get rid of Bush for a president that would respect freedom of speech, wouldn't bomb indiscriminately and had a tougher hand towards corporations and Wall Street and I got Obama.
So at this point I might as well ask for the Moon.
Well I don't know what to think. I wanted to get rid of Bush for a president that would respect freedom of speech, wouldn't bomb indiscriminately and had a tougher hand towards corporations and Wall Street and I got Obama.
So at this point I might as well ask for the Moon.
17
Wow, one feather out of place in the coastal media seagull and the entire edifice starts to jenga. The term fragile coalition comes to mind.
18
@15--Thanks for that link. When I read Krugman's piece, it struck me as a bit thin. If you are going to accuse someone of “multiple errors and misrepresentations”--particularly in a piece that everyone is going to be reading and talking about--you should probably have more than one example to back it up.
"I'm smart and I have a Nobel prize" (even though he is and he does) ain't gonna cut it.
The economic indicators are what they are, and the recovery has been anemic, at best. The question is how much of it you can really lay at Obama's feet. (Probably a lot less than Ferguson would.)
I think criticizing Obama for completely ignoring Bowles-Simpson is fair. If Obama had seized a balanced approach when he had the chance, he could have made the Republicans look as fiscally reckless as they actually are. By doing next to nothing, he gave that issue back to them. Stupid.
The whole "repudiation of neoconservatism" argument is one in Mr. Obama's favor, as far as I'm concerned. I wish that were true.
None of which outweighs all the reasons not to vote for Romney, for me. But I am a long way from excited about voting for Obama again.
"I'm smart and I have a Nobel prize" (even though he is and he does) ain't gonna cut it.
The economic indicators are what they are, and the recovery has been anemic, at best. The question is how much of it you can really lay at Obama's feet. (Probably a lot less than Ferguson would.)
I think criticizing Obama for completely ignoring Bowles-Simpson is fair. If Obama had seized a balanced approach when he had the chance, he could have made the Republicans look as fiscally reckless as they actually are. By doing next to nothing, he gave that issue back to them. Stupid.
The whole "repudiation of neoconservatism" argument is one in Mr. Obama's favor, as far as I'm concerned. I wish that were true.
None of which outweighs all the reasons not to vote for Romney, for me. But I am a long way from excited about voting for Obama again.
19
@#11 I think you were logged into the wrong account there, champ. That account is the one you use to burble inane cheerleading for Rmoney, trolling these boards. You probably meant to register that comment under whatever account you use to post apparently sane comments.
@#4 Niall Ferguson has gone Full Wingnut for years. Having destroyed his academic reputation, he has realized he can have a lucrative and seemingly respectable career by using his British Accent and his lingering status as a Public Intellectual to parrot the most obviously false and disingenuous talking points of Fox News in a seemingly authoritative manner. He recently gave the 2012 BBC Reith lectures - a tremendous honor, arranged for him by his NeoCon friends - and practically every word he spoke was a lie, including the conjunctions. No liberal, he.
@#4 Niall Ferguson has gone Full Wingnut for years. Having destroyed his academic reputation, he has realized he can have a lucrative and seemingly respectable career by using his British Accent and his lingering status as a Public Intellectual to parrot the most obviously false and disingenuous talking points of Fox News in a seemingly authoritative manner. He recently gave the 2012 BBC Reith lectures - a tremendous honor, arranged for him by his NeoCon friends - and practically every word he spoke was a lie, including the conjunctions. No liberal, he.
20
@8:
1. DIFFERENT foreign policy resulting in the death of OBL, overthrow of Gaddafi without american casualties, Israel not launching attack on Iran, and the rest of the planet liking us again.
2. economy demonstrably recovered from the ditch bush threw it in. america much healthier than europe, despite weak job growth, incomplete recovery of the real estate sector, and GOP refusal to let president govern. absent the decline in government employment (which conservatives have always said they wanted), the unemployment rate would be a full percentage point lower.
1. DIFFERENT foreign policy resulting in the death of OBL, overthrow of Gaddafi without american casualties, Israel not launching attack on Iran, and the rest of the planet liking us again.
2. economy demonstrably recovered from the ditch bush threw it in. america much healthier than europe, despite weak job growth, incomplete recovery of the real estate sector, and GOP refusal to let president govern. absent the decline in government employment (which conservatives have always said they wanted), the unemployment rate would be a full percentage point lower.
21
@#15, #18
As Ferguson concedes, Krugman is on vacation, and it's a blog post, not a comprehensive indictment. For Ferguson to crow that Krugman made only a single substantive complaint is absurd, a theatrical attempt at misrepresentation.
So let's look at Ferguson's "rebuttal":
Got that? Ferguson is selectively quoting parts of the CBO report and - this is the sweet bit - pretending he doesn't know the difference between "net" and "gross".
Because, in his Newsweek piece, Ferguson said the CBO scored the ACA (sorry, part of the ACA) as increasing the net cost, and here he's talking about the gross cost. Ferguson goes on to dispute various projections in the CBO report and to make irrelevant complaints about how taxes are inherently evil, but this is all smoke and mirrors. The CBO report said the ACA would not be a net cost to the budget; Ferguson said "part of" the ACA would be a net cost (how part of something can be a net cost is a real question), and when called on it Ferguson first tries the schoolboy trick of saying that if called to defend a single point everything else must be true, and then redoubles the lie on which he's been called.
Par for the course, sadly.
More...
As Ferguson concedes, Krugman is on vacation, and it's a blog post, not a comprehensive indictment. For Ferguson to crow that Krugman made only a single substantive complaint is absurd, a theatrical attempt at misrepresentation.
So let's look at Ferguson's "rebuttal":
In my piece I say: "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."
Krugman counters in his Conscience of a Liberal blog by saying: “The ACA would reduce, not increase, the deficit—because the insurance subsidies were fully paid for.” But I very deliberately said “the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA,” not “the ACA.” There is a big difference.
Got that? Ferguson is selectively quoting parts of the CBO report and - this is the sweet bit - pretending he doesn't know the difference between "net" and "gross".
Because, in his Newsweek piece, Ferguson said the CBO scored the ACA (sorry, part of the ACA) as increasing the net cost, and here he's talking about the gross cost. Ferguson goes on to dispute various projections in the CBO report and to make irrelevant complaints about how taxes are inherently evil, but this is all smoke and mirrors. The CBO report said the ACA would not be a net cost to the budget; Ferguson said "part of" the ACA would be a net cost (how part of something can be a net cost is a real question), and when called on it Ferguson first tries the schoolboy trick of saying that if called to defend a single point everything else must be true, and then redoubles the lie on which he's been called.
Par for the course, sadly.
23
Niall Ferguson's ????
Puhhhlease, Ferguson is the Wall Street stooge's stooge, for chrissakes.
The clown wrote the two-volume, official puff piece on the Rothschilds, where he ignored all the important information and data, and attacked David Ickes in the preface, for chrissakes (and if there ever was an official Lizard Person, it would have to be Niall Ferguson).
Ferguson is always whoring for Wall Street, calling the economic meltdown a once in a lifetime "epiphenomena" -- for chrissakes --- nothing "epiphenomena" about it, stooge ferguson!
Ferguson is a long-time member of the lobbyist group for the international ultra-rich, the Bretton Woods Committee:
http://www.brettonwoods.org/members/
And please be sure to sign the petition below, one of the brave who stood up for the public against Karl Rove and his gang:
http://www.change.org/petitions/presiden…
Puhhhlease, Ferguson is the Wall Street stooge's stooge, for chrissakes.
The clown wrote the two-volume, official puff piece on the Rothschilds, where he ignored all the important information and data, and attacked David Ickes in the preface, for chrissakes (and if there ever was an official Lizard Person, it would have to be Niall Ferguson).
Ferguson is always whoring for Wall Street, calling the economic meltdown a once in a lifetime "epiphenomena" -- for chrissakes --- nothing "epiphenomena" about it, stooge ferguson!
Ferguson is a long-time member of the lobbyist group for the international ultra-rich, the Bretton Woods Committee:
http://www.brettonwoods.org/members/
And please be sure to sign the petition below, one of the brave who stood up for the public against Karl Rove and his gang:
http://www.change.org/petitions/presiden…
24
Newsweek is an august publication? hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahhahahahaha
Seriously. That has NEVER been true.
hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahhahahahaha
Seriously. That has NEVER been true.
26
Nice explanation by Warren Terra @21, but just to take a step back here...
So here's Niall Ferguson splitting hairs about whether or not the Affordable Care Act adds to the deficit. And yet, the party he's shilling for thought nothing of passing one deficit-exploding initiative after another: two unfunded foreign wars, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, two rounds of tax cuts.
Of course, Ferguson knows this all too well, as does so-called deficit hawk Paul Ryan, who voted for all these budget-busting measures when he had the chance.
So here's Niall Ferguson splitting hairs about whether or not the Affordable Care Act adds to the deficit. And yet, the party he's shilling for thought nothing of passing one deficit-exploding initiative after another: two unfunded foreign wars, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, two rounds of tax cuts.
Of course, Ferguson knows this all too well, as does so-called deficit hawk Paul Ryan, who voted for all these budget-busting measures when he had the chance.
27
@21--Fair enough re blog posts, and all of that. (And thank you for your detailed explanation.) But one really shouldn't call someone a liar in public unless and until you can substantively back it up. I like Krugman, but he has the annoying academic habit of occasionally coasting on his reputation.
Sullivan's response is a bit more promising:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/…
Sullivan's response is a bit more promising:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/…
31
I used to read Newsweek and Time cover-to-cover, years ago, but I outgrew them. Too heavy on ads and entertainment - froth - and really not that insightful or informative. I just get a lot more online, and I get it for free. Plus I don't have to deal with the physical clutter.
So I can fully understand why circulation for news magazines is way down. They're just a quaint thing of the past. And I can understand why they would resort to some marketing ploy to reap some rewards out of the election season. For some reason, it's just safer and more lucrative to troll from the right than from the left.
So I can fully understand why circulation for news magazines is way down. They're just a quaint thing of the past. And I can understand why they would resort to some marketing ploy to reap some rewards out of the election season. For some reason, it's just safer and more lucrative to troll from the right than from the left.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
-
Meanwhile in Toronto by Dan Savage
-
In Which I Do Not Declare My Candidacy for Seattle City Council by Goldy
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (31) RSS