Charlie Rangel vs. The New York Times. In general, I like this sort of format. I don't understand when publications publish letters accusing them of serious factual violations and offer no reply. Is the author right, and the publication wrong? Or is the author wrong, and the publication is promoting their letter to look open-minded? In the days of newsprint, maybe there were space constraints, but with this here internets, folks can mix it up. And the New York Times does exactly that today, getting almost bloggy as it tears apart Rangel's objections to their coverage of him.
