Self-impressed liberal New York Times columnist Paul "I have been right about everything" Krugman was featured in the October 23 issue of Rolling Stone, devoting over 4,000 words "In Defense of Obama." Yes, despite all current dangers foreign, domestic, and coming in from overseas, Obama's presidency is soaring and things would be even better if not for "scorched-earth" Republican obstructionism.
Paul Krugman


Within the space of a week, the Public Editor of The New York Times, Margaret Sullivan, and Sarah Durand, a senior editor of publisher Simon & Schuster subsidiary Atria Books, have vividly illustrated how the game of liberal media bias works.
Let’s start with the Times.

It's different when the MSM puts a Republican inside a bullseye, because, uh . . . Remember when in 2011 voices on the left from Keith Olbermann to Paul Krugman to the Huffington Post among many others suggested that Sarah Palin was at least partially to blame for the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords because Palin had put out a map of House seats with bullseyes depicting districts, including Giffords', that Republicans were targeting? Krugman for example wrung his hands over the "climate of hate" that Palin and others on the right were supposedly fomenting, and predicted growing political violence in the years ahead.
Will those same leftists condemn the Daily Beast, which today featured a photo of Rand Paul inside a big red bullseye over a story headlined "Rand Paul = Democrats’ Enemy #1." Enemy #1? Bullseye? Oh, the humanity! View the photo after the jump.

The New York Times... just endorsed the legalization of marijuana. But we think they just need more Americans stoned in order to take Paul Krugman seriously.
To subscribe to NewsBusted via email, sign up here. To watch the Tuesday, August 5 edition, click play on the embed below the page break. To subscribe at YouTube, visit the NewsBusted channel here.

Paul Krugman at the New York Times and other fever-swamp leftists who, incredibly, are operating under the assumption that the economy has experienced an acceptable if uneven "recovery" during the five years since the recession ended are celebrating what they believe was an epic live "embarrassment" of Rick Santelli at the hands of Steve Liesman at CNBC on Monday.
A Google search shows that Mediaite ("CNBC Reporter Torches Rick Santelli"), New Republic ("CNBC's Rick Santelli Was Embarrassed on Live TV"), Talking Points Memo ("Watch CNBC's Tea Partier Get Told How Wrong He's Been"), Business Insider ("Steve Liesman Issued A Devastating Line To Rick Santelli"), and of course Vox ("Watch Steve Liesman demolish Rick Santelli's inflation fearmongering") are all piling on. Following the jump, I will show that Santelli only claimed to have been right about the direction of the economy for the past five years, after which Liesman changed the subject and hogged the microphone:

All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others. – George Orwell in Animal Farm
George Orwell never met New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. Not to mention the Left’s current pin-up author Thomas Piketty. But Orwell knew the type.

Common-ground alert: Salon's Alex Pareene doesn't think much of the New York Times's opinion columnists as a group, and neither, presumably, do NewsBusters readers. As for the reasons why, well, let's just say most of Pareene's almost certainly aren't the same as yours.
Pareene blasts Maureen Dowd for "sloppiness, not to mention rote repetition of themes and jokes and incredibly lazy thinking" and skewers Nick Kristof for his alleged "do-gooder liberalism [which] involves the bizarre American conviction that bombing places is a great way to help them." He likes Thomas Friedman even less, writing that Friedman "is an embarrassment" who "writes stupid things, for stupid people, about complicated topics" and "dutifully pushes a stultifyingly predictable center-right agenda."

The New York Times attacked Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's new budget proposal from several angles on Wednesday. Congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman adopted an accusatory pro-Democratic tone in his report, "Ryan’s Budget Would Cut $5 Trillion in Spending Over a Decade," warning that it proposed "steep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, and the total repeal of the Affordable Care Act just as millions are reaping the benefits of the law," and promised it would give Democrats a big target in the 2014 elections.
Elsewhere, columnist Paul Krugman called Ryan a "con man," and an editorial accused Ryan of having "very dangerous ideas."

As we approach the 2014 open enrollment deadline for ObamaCare in a week, have you noticed how the airwaves are absolutely flooded with $500 million of commercials by health insurance companies plugging that program day and night? What, you haven't seen a thing? Yes, apparently Tinker Bell sprinkled Pixie Dust upon all that money and made it, poof, disappear despite assurances last December that such promised ad buys were proof that insurance companies were so positive of the ultimate success of success of ObamaCare that they had committed so much money to promoting it.
This supposed all in commitment by insurance companies to such a large amount of spending on Obamacare promotion was chronicled by your humble correspondent on December 17. Since that time no such ad spending has occurred. Did the media liberals hope that we wouldn't notice the utter lack of insurance company ad spending? If so, they are out of luck since they are now being called out here starting with Paul Krugman of the New York Times who claimed that The Big Money Bets on Obamacare:

If you’re confused about what to get Paul Krugman for Valentine’s Day, it’s not like he hasn’t dropped enough hints. He likes spending. Gobs of it. In fact, he thinks President Barack Obama is far too miserly with the public dime. Since Obama was elected in 2008, Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, has called for an increase in U.S. government spending 133 times in his New York Times column.
Liberal columnist Paul Krugman ludicrously blamed the press for "malpractice" in reporting that ObamaCare would cut two million full-time jobs. Krugman made his remarks on Thursday night's Colbert Report.
"I see a lot of media malpractice, because a lot of the news orgs got it wrong. The CBO did not say that," Krugman responded to host Stephen Colbert's claim that "2.5 million people fewer will have jobs by 2021." [MP3 audio available here; video below the jump]

In a December 27 blog post, New York Times columnist and incurable Keynesian economist Paul Krugman capitalized on the problems United Parcel Service and to a lesser extent Fedex had in delivering Christmas packages on time: "Can’t the private sector do anything right?"
While I recognize that there's sarcasm in his question, Krugman then went on to try to make HealthCare.gov's problems appear analogous: "[M]any pundits were quick to declare healthcare.gov’s problems evidence of the fundamental, irretrievable incompetence of government, and as an omen of Obamacare’s inevitable collapse. ... (But) none of these people are making similar claims about UPS or Amazon." Since the Nobel Economics laureate appears to be too dense to understand the differences between the two situations, Robert P. Murphy, "the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism," explained many of them in a Sunday post at the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada's web site (bolds are mine throughout this post):
