The Blog

And newspapers wonder why they are losing readers. Cut back on reporting and run more wire stories...

Crewdson - Karma at its best. If people read Nikolas Kontaratos' book and/or Gallo's book,you'd know the truth. Crewdson was obsessed with Gallo.

Mike, I'm not sure if the latter is true...Isn't the Tribune going to stop using AP in 2 years?

Katie -- I think your question might be more pertinent if you omit the words "using AP."

So, is this for real? Can you confirm all, if any of the latter (particularly Crewdson)? I can confirm eventually myself, but if you know... Thank goodness for the internet!

Some of the most compelling reporting that came out of the Chicago Tribune in the last few decades were the Crewdson stories on AIDS research. I read them avidly from beginning to end, and it was clear to me they represented great sciece writing, well deserving of a Pulitzer. It is clear that critics who personalize Crewdson's differences with Gallo as being obsessed suggest that they could not argue on the truthfullness of the stories, and had to attack Crewdson. Crewdson was not obsessed with Gallo; rather he was obsessed at getting at the truth. While Miner was a tad sceptical of Crewdson, it was clear to me that he would ultimately be vindicated. That said, I have not noticed Crewdson's by-line in recent years. That does not mean that he had been making contributions, but certainly the kind of stories he had been writing recently seem to lack visibility.

Check out HHS' Appeals Baord on Research Intecgrity Adjudications Panel, November 3, 1994 -- the findings as quoted, "One might anticipate that from all this evidence, after all the sound and fury, there would be at least a residue of palpable wrongdoing. That is not the case," the panel wrote. Perhaps refer to responsible media such as The Washington Post's David Brown - 4-Year Investigation Exonerates AIDS Researcher, Friday, November 5, 1993. Many conclude Crewdson was on a Gallo witch-hunt.

I feel bad for anyone who loses a job, but on Crewdson: was productivity an issue? Sadly, it doesn't matter what a journalist did 10 years ago but what they are doing now.

I think the elephant in the room is the concept of having a reporter spend 20 months and 50K words to document whether Scientist A or Scientist B truly deserved credit. I submit it is that kind of thinking that is a big part of why newspapers are in the trouble they're in today. Newsrooms pursue "good stories" without thinking through exactly why it is, or isn't, a "good" story. Is it an interesting yarn? I guess. Is it worth putting in the paper? Sure, all things being equal. But things are never equal. Everything comes with opportunity costs. What stories and issues were not covered by Crewdson (or the Tribune) because of the resources committed to the Gallo story? Keep in mind, this was not Randy Shilts-type reporting that brought an important public health issue to light and saved lives. It is coverage of an academic pissing match. Which most of the public couldn't care less about. And which (sacriledge alert!) isn't particularly necessary or useful information needed to facilitate the functioning of a democratic society. That is the reason we care about the survival of newspapers, isn't it?

Ex-Journo Well said.

As relevant as Ex-Journo's comment is, people should know there are woodenheads in newsrooms around the country engaging in tasks more trivial than "academic pissing matches." They obsess about "the look" of the page, down to its hairline rules. If we're going to fire reporters, then these hairline obsession artistes need to be shown the door as well.

Wenalway -- I agree. And it all springs from the same source. Newspapers and newsrooms are full of people doing tasks that are geared more toward what the journalism industry thinks is appropriate or useful, and not what readers and consumers think is appropriate or useful.

Exactly. I as a reader don't care about graphics or layout, but decent stories. Sadly, as more and more journalists get laid off, who will still be there to write the stories? I can't imagine a morning without a newspaper, but it looks like in my lifetime I might see that morning. :(

More verification that the print media has followed broadcast into the gutter of 'if it bleeds, it leads'. Better to keep the populace occupied reading about not much of anything, then to encourage that populace to think, much better for those who can't profit from an intelligent and thoughtful consumer population.

Good article from SPY magazine on Gallo, with mentions of Crewdson: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/srlabrat.htm

Sorry to hear Aamer lost his position. Good guy, great writer and a fanstastic talent for whoever picks him up next.

Ex-Journo: Your ignorance is breathtaking. I'm thankful you've discovered another profession.

So true. This bureau writer had his day in the sun 20 years ago. Where are the laurels for work done in national reporting in the time hence? When I visited the L.A. Times there were reporters there who bragged they hadn't filed a byline in over a year. It was a status thing - to be above the daily bump and grind. To rest on one's laurel's at the top of the chain and contribute little daily action was once a respected pursuit in U.S. newsrooms. Do the arts critics at the Chicago Tribune still have cubicles with high walls surrounding them so they don't have to witness the din of the daily reporters working on stories? Great newspapers are well written and well designed. The great newspapers are luxury products. Truly high-quality products designed to serve intelligent readers. The sad truth is that you have to travel to Brussels, Paris, Berlin and other world capitals to find them. There you will find them and their newsrooms flourishing. Great, must-read newspapers no longer exist on these shores, they are an extinct species that is no longer endangered, they are all but dead. Soon my copy editing job will be outsourced and I'll move back in with mom. Such is life in Bush's america.

So much for the Trib's vaunted Baghdad reporters: Hedges, Madhani, Glauber, Osnos, Franklin, Jervis - all gone. Together, they put in years of sacrifice and work - endured personal trauma and worked valiantly. This is their reward. And to think, Lee Abrams never knew 'em.

I'd like to also affirm what Ex-Journo said about the opportunity cost of having a highly compensated journalist spend months on a, possibly, mildly interesting but marginal story. This is true of so much in print journalism. Stories are covered because they eat up space and get you out of the business of doing something useful. Crewdson's Gallo heyday came not all that long after Chicago newspapers abandoned the idea of doing any kind of undercover journalism, like the Mirage series in the Sun-Times. Suddenly, they got religion and decided that such work (often the only way to really nail so many sordid undersides of government and society) was somehow unethical. It's so much cheaper and so much less messy to send someone like John Crewdson after some high-minded but truly marginal story. . And, again, the idea is to eat up space with something that LOOKS damned important--and something that, incidentally, is inclined to win plaudits in the hermetically sealed journalism awards industry. The readers can't tell what's missing. It's like trying to prove a negative. . So IMHO one can trace the long, sad downward arc of American newspaper journalism from Mirage to Gallo. Newspapers aren't dying; they are killing themselves, shooting themselves repeatedly in their fully anesthetized heads. . (Also like Wenalway's comments about the newsroom woodenheads obsessing over presentation. If papers had much to say, they'd really pack it into those diminishing columns. Instead we get clip art and eye candy.)

And, it just occurs to me, that eye candy and factoids serve the same purpose as the Crewdsons of the world: They eat up space! And each is low-cost in its own way--in monetary terms for the eye candy and in terms of controversy for the pointless navel-gazing stories. It's a win-win for newspapers--until they disappear.

One adjective fitting Crewdson was missing, useless. He took up the salary and open-ended expenses of a battery of reporters. In the final analysis of his investigations it was evident he couldn't find a bowling ball in a bag of grapes; either he had the pictures or was the offspring of one of the geniuses running the Trib has been attributed to his charmed life at the paper.

I think Ex-Journo is right. Too often too much space is spent on reports that flatter the reporter's sense of self. But they laid of Aamer Madhani? I don't get that. I never knew him personally, but from being in the newsroom I can say he worked hard and deserved much, much better.

They still haven't laid off that idiot Eric Zorn - all opinion, no news, and focused on the most trivial and BS of issues. Until they fire him, I still won't purchase a copy of that journalistic rag. When they do, I might give up the 60 cents or whatever to help support them - untill then, I grab a copy of the Reader, Crains, and look online at the Chicagoist - the two MSM big papers in this town aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

Anonymous wrote that Nikolas Kontaratos' book "Dissecting a Disease" (2006)proves that Crewdson had a vendetta against Gallo. The truth is, Gallo hired Kontaratos, a licensed security guard and relative of one of Gallo's IHV goons, to write the book. If Gallo was innocent, he would not have hired a security guard and part time filter salesman to investigate him. Crewdson was right - Gallo exposed himself. Read more here... http://exlibhollywood.blogspot.com/2009/05/doctors-without-boundaries.html