Home > LACMA's Questionable Rug Purchase >RK and the LA Times Email Exchange
Author:jc
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Tue, Mar 8th, 2005 11:17:28 PM
Topic: RK and the LA Times Email Exchange

Herein lies the complete correspondence between RK and the Los Angeles TIMES detailing our objections to the biased, poorly researched and flawed “article” and subsequent “correction” they published.

We brought them the story and provided all the background information for it, even telling them who to call and supplying the phone numbers where those individual could be reached.

We alerted them, through RK.com’s website’s coverage of the purchase of the carpet by The Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), to a voluminous amount of research, including several comparative analyses demonstrating the erroneous dating and mythic attributions dodds blatantly used to convince LACMA to purchase his “rug”.

We clearly and succinctly showed the TIMES through factual means the mis-statements and actual misrepresentations of the truth dodds used to peddle his shop-worn rug for such an exorbitant price.

We even provided proof of individuals who had been offered the carpet, thereby debunking his fallacious statement to the museum that the rug was from his “private” collection and never had been offered for sale.

We traced the carpet back to 1981 when it was offered for sale in a German dealer’s exhibition catalog, another fact dodds “forgot” to mention in his fevered pitch to LACMA’s curator dale gluckman. This also debunked dodds’s statement of owning it “for more than 25 years”

The voluminous evidence we provided the TIMES proved without a doubt our position the carpet was not 16th century, not a masterpiece of its type and not a museum worthy art-object.

Then walter denny, one of the three experts chosen by the museum to vet the carpet, renounced his opinion about it’s age thereby affirming what we had claimed from the beginning.

The preponderance of evidence and fact was on our side and actually to say everything we claimed about this carpet and its sale to LACMA was indisputable would be totally accurate.

So how then could the TIMES publish such a biased and flawed account?

Why would the TIMES choose to “shoot the messenger” instead of pointing their guns on LACMA, dodds, denny and everyone else involved in this fiasco?

RK believes the TIMES was held hostage by the power a big city, world famous, museum like LACMA brought to bear and, therefore, chose to maintain the cover-up of the facts rather than allow them into the public sphere.

This should not be surprising to anyone conversant with politics, as the art-world revolves no differently than any other aspect of society where politics and power, not truth or ethics, rule.

Even a partial reading, let alone a careful and complete one, of RK.com’s coverage, which includes our comments rebutting the laughable posturing supporting LACMA’s cover-up and duck positions as expressed in the Times’s“article” and “correction”, support our contentions of collusion.

Of course, the major question is why the TIMES bothered to publish the article in the first place?

To answer that question, there is only one possible response – LACMA and the TIMES knew RK.com’s position and the substantiations used to prove that position were so strong and tenable that to allow them to gain widespread exposure without trying to knock them down, no matter how feeble that effort was, would be viewed as agreement.

On one hand, and in the short run, they were right - silence would have been construed as consent.

However, the lame and culpable extent the TIMES and LACMA went through to publish their “hit” piece on us has fooled nobody but themselves and will, we bet, come back to haunt them as time goes on.

Cover-ups rarely succeed and the truth often has a way of seeping through to the surface, no matter how tightly the powers that be try to seal it up.

Time will tell if LACMA will be able outlast the truth.

But RK believes with each succeeding day, as more and more people learn about this situation, LACMA’s attempts to hide behind the fallacies expressed in their published opinions combined with the serious flaws in the TIMES’s article will, like the dark roots of a dyed blonde’s hairstyle, become ever more apparent.

The complete email correspondence between RK and the TIMES that appears below presents a picture for all to see - the TIMES ignored the facts and, in doing so, added nothing but confirmation to our conclusion they colluded with LACMA. More importantly, they fell far short of every great newspaper’s credo to present unbiased reportage for its readership.

This chronology of emails presents the last one first, as the TIMES’s failure to respond to our ultimatum expressed therein forced our hand to make these emails public knowledge.

From: jack cassin [mailto:jc@wamri.org]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 10:12 PM
To: Readers Rep

Subject: Re: LACMA and the Oriental Rug
Ms Gold:
1. the failure to even bother notifying me of the "correction" typifies the incompetence I have witnessed in dealing with the LA Times

2. that "correction" couldn't have been more of an insult to me if it had been written by that moron dennis dodds himself

3. if you or anyone else of higher authority at the Times believe this will satisfy me you are all grossly mistaken

4. I am done pussy-footing around here and unless a proper account of my position is published I will seek every means to remedy the situation

5. I believe it is now time for someone of intelligence and authority to contact me directly to address this situation. Should this not come to pass by 6PM on Tuesday March 8, 2005 I will affect plans I already have in place might bring LACMA and the Times to regret their carelessness and culpability in furthering the cover-up and denial of fact.

Is this now clear?
Jack Cassin

on 3/4/05 9:55 PM, Readers Rep at
Readers.Rep@latimes.com wrote:
Hi -- this correction ran yesterday.
FOR THE RECORD
Los Angeles Times Thursday March 03, 2005 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2
Turkish carpet -- An article in the Feb. 21 Calendar section about a Turkish carpet purchased by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art whose date appears to be later than believed at the time of acquisition identified Jack Cassin, who questioned the carpet's authenticity, as a New York rug dealer and author. Cassin identifies himself an art dealer whose interest is in historic Oriental carpets. Also, Cassin previously said that he had not seen the carpet; he says now that he did see it years earlier while it was on exhibit in Philadelphia.
Jamie Gold

Readers' Representative

From: jack cassin [mailto:jc@wamri.org]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 6:50 PM
To: Readers Rep
Subject: Re: LACMA and the Oriental Rug
Ms Gold:
Am I to assume this issue is a dead one as far as your paper is concerned?
I would appreciate knowing asap if this is the case
Jack Cassin

From: jack cassin [mailto:jc@wamri.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March, 1 2005 7:25 PM
To: Readers Rep
Subject: Re: LACMA and the Oriental Rug
Jamie:
Frankly, I don't know why you even bothered to email me back since what you write is nothing more than more of the same - words that deny the truth of our dis-satisfaction with the reportage and situation as a whole.

Let's address your words with reality in mind, OK?

You wrote: The article said, "when New York rug dealer and author Jack Cassin, who directs the online Weaving Art Museum"....you said that you are not a rug dealer. As per your follow-up comments, the Times will correct this to tell readers that you call yourself an art dealer whose interest is in historic Oriental carpets.

>>How will the Times “correct this”? Including that in your email would have impressed me, omitting it surely didn’t

You wrote: "the passage quoting the LACMA rep saying that it now dates the rug 1650-1750. You've said that your own research and expertise show it to be 1750 or later.'

>>Yes i did and the bent of the story avoided giving me any credit for saying so, and more importantly, presented denny's "declaration" in a matter of fact way

>>nancy Thomas stupid statement this is normal – having a object re-dated from the 16th to the 18th century is laughable and culpable….

>>The reportage did nothing other than diminish the importance of the redating by denny, in fact it reduced it to a ho-hum - something which is truly unbelievable considering the REALITY the museum bought it as 16th century based on denny and others confirmation of that spurious dating –

>>This casual way the article reported this is the center-piece of my objections to its truthfulness and objectivity –

>>These are my real complaints, and so far you have not been able to counter what is fact…

You wrote: "The story did include the range of dates as suggested by Walter Denny (described as "an eminent authority on Islamic art and architecture, who is a professor of archeology and Middle Eastern studies at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and a research associate at the Textile Museum in Washington, D.C.") This point is attributed to an individual with whom you apparently disagree. While you say that he told you that he believes it is closer to 1750, the fact is that the article included the range given by Denny to the museum and to the reporter. Readers were not misled on this point."

>>Denny made it abundantly clear he places the carpet at the END and not the beginning of that continuum and this, again, supports my dating and was down peddled by the article - to the detriment of objective reporting in ANYONE”S eyes…

You Wrote: "You believe that the story should have emphasized that the museum would not have even looked into this without your intervention.

The article said, "Questions about the carpet's authenticity arose when New York rug dealer and author Jack Cassin, who directs the online Weaving Art Museum, heard of the acquisition and charged that it was much newer than the museum thought." However, the story also reported Nancy Thomas, deputy director of the museum, as saying, "It has gone under a microscope since it came here. That's just part of normal museum business." In other words, It's not certain that you were the main reason the revision in date was made at this time. The article was about the revised date of the rug; further speculation about your role might have been interesting, but it was not an error for such information to not be emphasized."

>>What nancy thomas said, if that implies the museum was already looking into the carpets deficiencies, is a complete fabrication and lie...got that A LIE and just another element of the LACMA desire to cover-up this mess they got into by buying the rug. PERIOD

>>I spoke to dale gluckman before the rugkazbah.com first posting was even written -- she was completely surprised and flummoxed by my assertions – -

>>So please, Jamie, quit this shoot the messenger tack and get on the right one, truth

>>This entire situation - questioning the carpet - has only happened because of the questions raised by my calls to LACMA and then the public airing of them on RugKazbah.com---

ANY OTHER PICTURE IS A FALSE ONE AND I CAN PROVE IT IF NECESSARY

I AM GETTING DISENCHANTED WITH YOUR PAPER’S REFUSAL TO REPORT any of this IN AN UNBIASED AND OBJECTIVE MANNER

You Wrote: "The article says that the rug was purchased "for an undisclosed sum." You've said the amount is known. Readers would take the phrase "undisclosed sum" to mean that neither the seller nor the buyer divulged terms, and that is in fact the case. As you know, the article later reported the dollar amount that you gave as well. "

>>It is public knowledge the carpet was purchased by the 2004 collectors committee for 250,000.

>>at first we had an email sent by dennis dodds to a person in england where dodds wrote the 150,000 pound figure in reply to a question about the rug

>>that’s why it appeared in the first rk.com posting

>>we were sent that email and still retain it.

>>After further investigations, which included a call to ms. L. Zeno who is lacma's collectors committee representative(she is listed as the contact for that group on lacma's website) she told me the actual price, 250,000, and we then published that immediately afterwards on RugKazbah.com

>>if the times's reporter has bother to read more than the first posting all that would have been clear-

>> The fact it was not done proves our contention of the sloppy and shoddy "research" the article was based on

>>ALSO NOT ONE MENTION OF RUGKAZBAH.COM WAS MADE IN THE ARTICLE AND THIS, LIKE THE OTHER POINTS LISTED HERE, PROVES HOW THE TIMES ONLY WANTED TO GET AN “APPROVED” VIEW OF THIS STORY INTO THE PUBLIC EYE – CLEARLY MENTIONING RUGKAZBAH.COM WOULD HAVE ALLOWED ANYONE TO READ ALL OUR WORDS, NOT JUST THE ONES SELECTED BY THE REPORTER –

>>AGAIN MORE PROOF OF OUR CONTENTIONS AND NONE FOR YOURS, JAMIE

You wrote: "You take issue with this line: "Cassin, who had not seen the carpet and based his judgment on photographs ..." Editors say that you told the reporter during a lengthy conversation that you had seen photos, so the article reflects what you had told her when you spoke with her. Just to be clear: Are you saying now that you based your judgment on having seen it as well? For the purposes of correcting this if necessary, please let me know when that was (before or after the purchase), so that we can let readers know.

>>Seems your reporter has a very selective memory, forgetting important point but remembering others that did not even take place...

I told her I had seen the carpet years before when it was exhibited in a show in Philadelphia, pa(that by the way was organized by dodds) but that I did not handle it –

I also told her, and others at the TIMES, it had been pictured in the catalog of that exhibition, and had been "advertised" by dodds several times in the last few years

Again how and what is this "correct"ion you mention going to be played out?

>>BUT WHETHER OR NOT I HAD SEEN IT IS IMMATERIAL, AS NOW, SINCE THE GREAT EXPERT, DENNY, HAS DECLARED IT AS I DID THIS IS A MOOT POINT

>>CLEARLY I DIDN'T NEED TO SEE IT TO JUDGE IT CORRECTLY BUT DENNY SURE DID - ISN'T THAT NEWSWORTHY RATHER THAN CONCENTRATING ON A MOOT POINT??

You wrote: "As for your belief that the Times didn't report on this thoroughly enough, or objectively: I understand that your judgment on this story doesn't match the L.A. Times' reporting on what happened. "

>>Come on now, Jamie, anyone without an axe to grind anyone would believe that - my many points (expresed in the first and other subsequent RugKazbah.com postings) about the carpets deficiencies were hardly mentioned, my role in bring this situation to the fore diminished and basically ignored and the article's acceptance as truth of what everyone claims, while questioning everything Isay, is anything but the way you characterize this and prove bias, big time

You wrote: "However, I believe the story did report the facts on this issue, without compromising the report for any reason."

>>Is that you real opinion? I find it hard to believe you'd put your hand on the bible and say that....

Thank you again for bringing this to our attention.

>>Quit thanking me and show me some REAL thanks by correctly reporting this story….please

Jamie Gold
Readers' Representative

on 3/1/05 5:59 PM, Readers Rep at
Readers.Rep@latimes.com wrote:
Dear Mr. Cassin,
I've gone through your e-mails to the L.A. Times. Your correspondence seems to allege specific errors, and more broadly accuse the Times of not presenting this as the "art crime" that you believe it is.
First, let me address the errors you allege.
1. The article said, "when New York rug dealer and author Jack Cassin, who directs the online Weaving Art Museum"....you said that you are not a rug dealer. As per your follow-up comments, the Times will correct this to tell readers that you call yourself an art dealer whose interest is in historic Oriental carpets.
2. re: the passage quoting the LACMA rep saying that it now dates the rug 1650-1750. You've said that your own research and expertise show it to be 1750 or later. The story did include the range of dates as suggested by Walter Denny (described as "an eminent authority on Islamic art and architecture, who is a professor of archeology and Middle Eastern studies at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and a research associate at the Textile Museum in Washington, D.C.") This point is attributed to an individual with whom you apparently disagree. While you say that he told you that he believes it is closer to 1750, the fact is that the article included the range given by Denny to the museum and to the reporter. Readers were not misled on this point.
3. You believe that the story should have emphasized that the museum would not have even looked into this without your intervention.
The article said, "Questions about the carpet's authenticity arose when New York rug dealer and author Jack Cassin, who directs the online Weaving Art Museum, heard of the acquisition and charged that it was much newer than the museum thought." However, the story also reported Nancy Thomas, deputy director of the museum, as saying, "It has gone under a microscope since it came here. That's just part of normal museum business." In other words, It's not certain that you were the main reason the revision in date was made at this time. The article was about the revised date of the rug; further speculation about your role might have been interesting, but it was not an error for such information to not be emphasized.
4. The article says that the rug was purchased "for an undisclosed sum." You've said the amount is known.
Readers would take the phrase "undisclosed sum" to mean that neither the seller nor the buyer divulged terms, and that is in fact the case. As you know, the article later reported the dollar amount that you gave as well.
5. You take issue with this line: "Cassin, who had not seen the carpet and based his judgment on photographs ..." Editors say that you told the reporter during a lengthy conversation that you had seen photos, so the article reflects what you had told her when you spoke with her. Just to be clear: Are you saying now that you based your judgment on having seen it as well?
For the purposes of correcting this if necessary, please let me know when that was (before or after the purchase), so that we can let readers know.
As for your belief that the Times didn't report on this thoroughly enough, or objectively: I understand that your judgment on this story doesn't match the L.A. Times' reporting on what happened. However, I believe the story did report the facts on this issue, without compromising the report for any reason.
Thank you again for bringing this to our attention.
Jamie Gold
Readers' Representative

From: jack cassin [mailto:jc@wamri.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 10:58 AM
To: Readers Rep
Subject: Re: LACMA and the Oriental Rug
Jamie:
No apology is necessary from you but in re-reading what I wrote perhaps one should be forthcoming from me.
I meant in no regard to sound beligerant or unpleasant and perhaps my tone might have sounded so.
I did not mean that to be the case in any way
I was only interested in making my point clear.
Jack

on 2/24/05 12:46 PM, Readers Rep at
Readers.Rep@latimes.com wrote:
I thought I made clear in my inquiry that at this point it's but a minor question. I'm sorry now that I sent the note that I did. Thanks for this response.

From: jack cassin [mailto:jc@wamri.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:10 PM
To: Readers Rep
Subject: Re: LACMA and the Oriental Rug
Hello Jamie:
Please call me Jack.
Well, the subject of describing me is, quite frankly, of little importance to the issue at hand but, nonethess, it is somewhat important to me.

I would have preferred founder of the Weaving Art Museum, author and noted expert on historic Oriental Carpets.

I never have been a New York rug dealer in any sense of the word other than having been born in NYC and until 1980 maintaining a residence there.

I have never had a shoppe or business there or anywhere else for that matter. At the broadest stroke I was a private Art dealer who happened to spend time in NYC, as well as London, Paris, Munich, SF and LA.

The term "rug dealer" conjures up an image which surely is not me. Dodds sells rugs, some of them historic, or pseudo-historic as in LACMA's purchase, most of them nothing more than high-class furnishing pieces or intermediate "collector pieces. I am an ART DEALER who's art interest happen to be historic Oriental carpets. I hope this brief explanation clarifies this distinction.

I must comment on finding it quite strange you, or perhaps others who you represent, have fixated on how to portray me while the far more significant issues loom much larger.

The fact muchnic's article contained so many mis-representations and omissions should be the issue we are discussing, as these factors doomed it to present a highly stilted version of the truth.

I do recognize how to picture me might be an "opening gambit" but I would truly appreciate getting down to the meat here and not getting lost in mashed potatoes or gravy.

Here's hoping you and your paper will deal with this honestly and treat this story with the respect it deserves -- it's a cover-up played out by a Museum that made a serious error, plain and simple.

And now the Times appears to be part of that action. Even running the story on a holiday, president's day, rather than on Friday before as it was planned smacks of influence (or the fear of it) and demonstrates my point that the Times bowed to outside pressure.

As I wrote to Lisa Fung, I will not allow this art-crime and cover-up to just disappear.

So unless I feel satisfied the Times has made this issue right, I will hithertofore include the Times as part of that cover-up saga.

Actually, what has transpired between me and the Times will, I am sure, be as interesting to other media outlets as the original story itself.

Truly, though, I hope this can be resolved at this stage, making it unnecessary for me to battle with your paper, as well as LACMA, dodds, et.al. In that regard, please note, I am hoping for the best but preparing for the worst.

But should that be the case - my finding dissatisfaction with the papers response - you will find me an energetic adversary with a goodly number of resources at my command.
Sincerely yours,
Jack

on 2/23/05 9:19 PM, Readers Rep at
Readers.Rep@latimes.com wrote:
Dear Mr. Cassin,
I'm still in the process of reviewing this and I apologize for the delay - one question I can ask you right now, though: I understand that you believe the reference to you was inaccurate (" New York rug dealer and author Jack Cassin, who directs the online Weaving Art Museum...")
Can you please tell me in what way this was wrong and what reference would have been appropriate? Thank you again.
Jamie Gold
Readers' representative

From: jack cassin [mailto:jc@wamri.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:43 AM
To: Readers Rep
Subject: Re: LACMA and the Oriental Rug
Jamie:
I am impressed with your exceptional diligence and respect.
Please know I do appreciate it.
Regards
Jack

on 2/23/05 12:20 PM, Readers Rep at
Readers.Rep@latimes.com wrote:
Thanks for this, Mr. Cassin. I'll print it out to review as well and get back to you asap.
Jamie Gold
Readers' Representative

From: jack cassin [mailto:jc@wamri.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:11 AM
To: Readers Rep
Subject: Re: LACMA and the Oriental Rug
Good Morning Jamie:
I hope you will take the few minutes to read the following which we posted on RugKazbah.com this morning.
It provide further elucidation of my position about the Times's article in question.
Many thanks for your efforts on my behalf.
Sincerely yours,
Jack Cassin
==================
Further Thoughts re: The LA Times Article
It is abundantly clear the article published in the LA Times on Monday was very carefully worded in favor of the Museum, Dodds and Denny.

Their reporter was not shy about portraying them in the best light possible. However, more importantly for the issue at hand - the age and supposed importance of the carpet - was her leaning over backwards like a play-boy bunny used to serve a cocktail to avoid saying anything negative or, in our opinion, reality-based. Even worse, ms. Muchnic, a staff writer in the Arts and Culture department, endeavored to portray Jack Cassin and RugKazbah.com’s arguments in the least favorable light possible.

Clearly this was done because LACMA is Los Angeles County’s most important Art Museum and undoubtedly has some, if not more than some, influence on and connections to the upper echelons of the paper.

This is not an opinion but a fact anyone would conclude from an unprejudiced reading.

It is not difficult to imagine this and, frankly, we expected an uphill struggle would ensue when we watched the story getting bounced around to different writers in the editorial section of the newsroom, finally landing in Ms. Muchnic’s hands.

Did she play patsy to that influence?

In answer to that question the list of instances where Muchnic misrepresented, and even ignored, salient parts of RugKazbah.com’s position goes a long way to support our contention she did.

1. While Cassin’s credentials as a expert are not as obvious as Denny’s, or even Dodds’s, his expertise is on par, if not superior to theirs. This fact is well documented by Denny revising the opinion he originally forwarded about the carpet’s age to almost where Cassin placed it at the end of the 18th century. RugKazbah.com spoke directly to Denny and here is what he had to say to us “I told them (LACMA) it (the rug) was between 1650 and 1750 but probably at the late end of that continuum.”.

We cannot understand how Muchnic, or her editor, failed to see the importance of this, since the Times sent a writer to Denny’s lecture at the Museum where he said exactly the same thing. Denny’s recantation does nothing more than make the rest of Cassin’s contentions about the rug far more believable and, at the same time, call into question his expertise in comparison to Cassin’s. Both Denny and Cassin made their assessments from photographs and having previously seen the rug many years ago. Denny’s failure to correctly assess it without an in person inspection shows superior credentials do not necessarily prove superior expertise.

2. The verification of Cassin’s position concerning the carpet’s probable age also calls into serious question the rest of the stories Dodds told LACMA and supports Cassin’s proof all of this was only sales-talk and far from factual. Again Muchnic chose to ignore these facts, which included Cassin’s tracing the rug back to its appearance in a European dealer’s catalogued exhibition in 1981. This discovery debunked Dodds’s alleged history of the rug and while the article did state “Cassin claimed that the same work (the carpet) was sold in 1981 for $30,000.oo”, Muchnic failed to mention it as a fact and instead presented it only as a “claim”. This is just one more instance of the article’s rewriting facts, and even questioning them, to support LACMA’s desire to maintain the fictional stories the Museum and Dodds want to everyone to believe.

3. The article’s selective choice of but two of the ten points Cassin raised in RugKazbah.com’s first article about the rug’s purchase - entitled “LA Art Museum's Questionable Rug Purchase Revealed” - is surely not what we’d call good reporting. And since both of these were the most subjective it would appear Muchnic had help from the other side in choosing them. But even worse than the article’s failure to mention the eight other far more easily documented ones was ignoring the many others that appeared in subsequent articles on RugKazbah.com. A number of these included comparisons to similar carpets that are correctly dated to the 16th and 17th century, all of which show LACMA’s rug unfavorably. In fact, it is impossible to compare the LACMA rug to any genuine middle18th century, or earlier, Turkish rug of similar type and not show its deficiencies. It’s clear this is why the article chose to demur on this count as well.

4. Any astute reader, even one totally unfamiliar with historic Turkish rugs of this type, who read these articles on RugKazbah.com could not possible swallow Dodds’s preposterous claim the rug he sold LACMA is “Sone of the great carpets of this type in existence." Allowing such a ludicrous and patently false statement to stand unquestioned, in light of all the contradictory evidence available to the writer and her editors, makes mincemeat of their credo to report the facts.

5. The article failure to mention the web-address of RugKazbah.com - http://www.rugkazbah.com - or even its existence is, we feel, the most egregious example of Muchnic and the Times editorial staff’s culpability. Naturally had they many readers could have heard the facts of this story first-hand, which was clearly something this article refused to allow.

We could go on citing errors, omissions and misrepresentations of the facts at play here but feel the five we have enumerated here and those in the previous comments we offered about the article should be enough to prove the claim this piece was, at the least, poorly researched and written and, at the most, influenced by the paper’s collusion with a powerful Museum at the expense of the truth.

From: jack cassin [mailto:jc@wamri.org]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2005 2:42 PM
To: Readers Rep at
Readers.Rep@latimes.com
Subject: Re: LACMA and the Oriental Rug
Greetings Jamie:
If possible I would enjoy talking with you.
I am under the impression the background behind this story is far more interesting than the story itself.
In any event, being in New York and having no connection to anyone at the LA Times, I am surely at a disadvantage of learning the hows and whys of what happened in the Arts and Culture department's handling of the information I brought to them.
With thanks for your email
Jack Cassin

on 2/22/05 6:21 PM, Readers Rep at
Readers.Rep@latimes.com wrote:
Dear Mr. Cassin,
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the Feb. 21 article in Calendar, headlined "Carpet's old but not quite that old." The readers' representative office oversees requests for corrections and clarifications, and that is why this has been forwarded to me. I'm reviewing your points now and will get to you as soon as possible.
Thank you again,
Jamie Gold
Readers' Representative

Ms Fung:
(please excuse the typos in the original mail here is a corrected copy)
After carefully reading the story I can only question the possibility of the Times wishing to protect the museum and to make me into the boogey man.
Please read my comments and, as I stated in my voicemail message earlier today, if you have any sense of propriety and fair play I expect the Times to print my objections to your story. I also edpect you to personally oversee a fair and just re-examination of this issue.
Should I not hear from you and learn your intentions by the close of business on wensday feb. 23rd I will not only contact the other new outlets I mentioned to you but will also consider doing some in depth investigations of how your department handled this story and more importantly how I was used in that regard.
Sincerely yours,
Jack Cassin
who is NOT a New York rug dealer

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service