The New York Times has had Rep. Charles Rangel in its sights since July, when the paper reported on the New York congressman’s four rent-stabilized apartments. Last week, the Times raised the stakes, reporting on Nov. 25 that Rangel kept open a tax loophole for a corporation whose chief executive had made a large donation to Rangel’s charity.

Rangel responded to the story’s allegations the next day by letter. Instead of running a shortened version of the 700-word letter in the hard-copy version of the paper, the Times posted the entire letter online Wednesday afternoon, with a 1,500-word point-by-point rebuttal of Rangel’s complaints and clarifications by the original story’s author, David Kocieniewski.

News outlets reporting on the Times and Rangel back and forth have called it a “war of words.” And the verdict is in: After a “beatdown,” “the Times is winning the battle.”

The strangest description of the fight comes from the Congressional newspaper Roll Call, which said the Times‘ response was a “bizarre new twist.” The response is hardly bizarre—after the paper asked Rangel multiple times for an interview, only his lawyers spoke with the reporter. Immediately after the story ran, Rangel offered a lengthy explanation, but one that still raised questions. The Times used the expanded space of the its Web site to put Rangel’s response in context.

Charles Rangel’s actions deserve to be scrutinized; he wields a lot of power as chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. And that scrutiny has turned up plenty of questionable behavior (all documented here). But the Times‘ extraordinary response to Rangel’s letter shows just how much power the paper wields, too. There’s no question more people read Rangel’s letter and the Times‘ response because it was posted in full on the paper’s home page.

What kind of precedent does the paper’s devastating rebuttal set? The Times‘ reporting was rock-solid in this instance, so it had no problem with doing a point-by-point takedown of Rangel’s letter. What happens when the reporting isn’t so solid? Will the protesting letter get relegated to the paper’s letters page?

The interaction between the Times and Rangel has been fascinating to watch. Will Rangel respond again to the paper’s reporting? And if it doesn’t run his next letter on the Web site, Rangel can always call a press conference to dispute the Times‘ claims.

There is no point in wringing our hands about the slippery slope of posting letters and responses to the Web—more dialogue between papers, sources, reporters and the reading public is a good thing. But it’s important to remember that the Times took the step of running Rangel’s letter because it knew it had the goods to dispute him. Every story should be as well-reported as the work David Kocieniewski has done on Rangel. If it isn’t, let’s hope the Times is still willing to publish a takedown, even if it takes down itself.