Why no news follow-up on Michael Vick?

I wrote the following to the investigative news desk of the New York Times:
"The Philadelphia Eagles are paying Michael Vick astronomical amounts; on TV he said in perfected public relations-mode that he "cried" in prison. Why no follow-up by the Times on his activities in regard to animals and to animal groups? Has he received counseling to deal with his years of participating in dog-killing? Do psychiatric specialists think 18 months of incarceration can have changed his basic mind-set about treatment of animals? He still refers to what he did euphemistically as having been in a wrong culture, as if the culture of dog-fighting were the criminal and not himself. He has not referred in simple language to his own torturing, beating dogs to death, and rejoicing in the money it brought him. The truth is found in what a person does and is seen to do. If he were remorseful he would seek counseling and reach out to animal protection groups. He has not done this. I appeal to your newspaper not to ignore reporting on his life outside football and not to treat the Vick matter as if it were distant, remedied and "not-news."

Killing of animals for spectacle and money has not ended. Vick has made no significant statements about it, nor has he demonstrated an inclination to spend any of the time and energy of his life in personal counter-balancing or acts (not words) of remorse. He is in a position of extraordinary power to make a difference as a role model and spokesman. Important work awaits him if he were willing to spend time representing a different view to help American society turn away from the idea of organized secret killing as an acceptable business. Thank you.