This is a pretty awful standard of journalism. I'd expect much better from Wired.
I hate to wish bad things onto people, but that's a basic ethical fault that should be punished, because it decreases the credibility of the whole paper (and a newspaper with no credibility is worthless). Not saying he should be fired, but harshly reprimanded, definitely. Twisting the facts to make a story more sensational is very improper.
Wired has had embarrassingly low standards for a long time. They go for the "razor-cool, cutting-edge" appearance, which invariably fails because the cutting-edge people don't care about being supercool. That means that while Wired occasionally has a fascinating, relevant article, they more often have lame stories that try too hard.
I don't know if "razor-cool" is a description, since it makes no sense, but it sounds good to me.
Why would you expect better from Wired? Have you forgotten "Push" (what, was that 1994?)? "The Long Tail" (which turned out to be based on completely wrong estimates of Amazon's sales data)? MJD's qrpff sidebar (http://perl.plover.com/qrpff/)? The Cypherpunks cover with the guy with the big knife (was that 1992 or 1993)? The "End of Theory" lies about Norvig? Wired has always been about sensationalism, not meticulous accuracy, from the very beginning.
I hate to wish bad things onto people, but that's a basic ethical fault that should be punished, because it decreases the credibility of the whole paper (and a newspaper with no credibility is worthless). Not saying he should be fired, but harshly reprimanded, definitely. Twisting the facts to make a story more sensational is very improper.