A story (“Misgivings Spoil Plans of Start-Up”) published last week on the New York Times is creating a lot of controversy as critics claim Saul Hansell has used the New York Times as a stage for plain slander. The main issue is that Hansell skewed way off the article’s main focal subject and took an angle that is not only a “non issue” but is actually unfair in how it presents things.

The subject of Hansell’s attacks has posted a response on his blog to the article. Armand Rousso response to NYT story by Saul Hansell points out several inaccuracies in Hansell’s story and claims that the whole issue of Rousso’s background is irrelevant to the story.

I must say, Rousso’s retort is fairly convincing and it doesn’t put the New York Times or Saul Hansell in a very good light. I leave it for you to decide - researched journalism or just plain slander?