To the New York Times:
It is beyond comprehension - simply, without exaggeration, absurd - that you would offer a story about the remarkable work of Gregory Colbert appearing in Venice -
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/22/arts/design/22NATU.html
- a story that goes into elaborate detail about this "rare artist" including extraneous nonsense about the photographer's pony tail - yet in your cringing little manner, fail to include a link to the gorgeous site created to provide some sense of his work, as well as information about the show:
http://www.ashesandsnow.org/home.html
There can be only one explanation of this "oversight": Your wish to dominate the web reader's attention, to glue their eyeballs to your meretricious product. This is not intelligent publishing on the Internet, it is a morally repugnant moneygrubber's game of rat and mouse.
How stupid do you think your "loyal readers" are?
Kindly forward this to article author Alan Riding.
Truly yours,
Tom Matrullo
PS. For your information, I didn't learn about Colbert's work from your wretched product, but from someone's blog. What's it like, being history?
==
In fairness, note that I received a quick reply, which I have replied to:
The reply from the Times (author's name withheld, for reasons which should be clear):
===
Dear Mr. Matrullo,
Thanks for your note. And more importantly, thanks for the link to his exhibition. We will post it. It should have been done yesterday.
Lastly, please appreciate that we have no secret agenda on articles like this. We should have posted a link to the exhibition, but somehow this slipped through the cracks.
(initials)
===
To which, my reply:
===
Mr. ______,
First, thank you for your prompt reply and promise of quick action.
Let me add that my intent was not to bring "heat" upon you or anyone else in particular, but to address what I can only describe as a systemic failure to make linking to source material a fundamental part of the Times' publishing practice on the Web.
If you or anyone else at the Times should care to discuss this matter, I would be more than happy to oblige.
Very truly yours,
Tom Matrullo
===
Dear Mr. Matrullo:
Thank you for writing to The New York Times on the Web.
There is a link to the site you mention on the right hand side of the article, under OTHER RESOURCES.
Regards,
Torben A. Jackson
The New York Times on the Web
Customer Service www.nytimes.com
===
Dear Mr. Jackson,
Thank you for writing. For the record, the link you point to was added in RESPONSE to my email.
Regards,
Tom Matrullo
==
SpaM reply 1:
We have received your manuscript and are reviewing it. We will call you within 10 days if we want to run it; please do not call to inquire about its status or respond to this automated message.
Thank you for your submission.
New York Times Op-Ed Page
==
sPAm rePly 2:
Thank you for your letter to The New York Times. If your letter is selected for publication, we will contact you before printing it. But because of the volume of letters received, we regret that we are not able to respond to all submissions, other than by this automated reply.
Letters should be no longer than 150 words and may be shortened to fit allotted space. They must be exclusive to The Times and refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days. Letters must include the writer's address and daytime and evening phone numbers (not for publication).
For a complete list of departmental e-mail addresses, you may send e-mail to directory@nytimes.com.
Sincerely,
The New York Times
==
spAm rePly 3:
Thank you for your e-mail. Due to the volume, I cannot promise to answer every e-mail sent. But I do promise to read every one. Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
==
