Who broke the Fred Goodwin/ The Infinite Mind story? 

Writer David Dobbs posted a story on his "Neuron Culture" blog about Philip Dawdy, who runs the pharmaceutical watchdog site, FuriousSeasons.com.

Dobbs' thesis is that Dawdy is a "one man army" when it comes to covering the pharmaceutical industry, but the New York Times steals his reporting and doesn't give him credit.  A story Dobbs cites as an example is the $1.2 million in undisclosed speaking fees that went to The Infinite Mind's former host, Fred Goodwin. However, Dobbs undermines his point about the quality of reporting in the blogosphere by not getting his own facts straight as he tries to argue that bloggers in their pajamas can out-report major news organizations.  See Dobbs' story: ("Zyprexa, Infinite Mind and mainstream vs. pajama press") and Pharmola's response to it, below. Given the ongoing debate about blog journalism vs. mainstream media, this was an interesting object lesson.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

David:

I read "Zyprexa, Infinite Mind, and mainstream vs. pajama press" with interest.

The premise of the posting is powerful and dramatic; that "pajama press" bloggers like Philip Dawdy, and his blog (furiousseasons.com) are out-reporting news outlets like the New York Times on stories such as the recent one involving "The Infinite Mind" public radio series, and are not getting credit for it.

However, as president of the company that produced The Infinite Mind, and as someone familiar with the news coverage surrounding the undisclosed pharma fees accepted by the show's former host, Fred Goodwin, I must note that there are numerous facts in the posting that praises Dawdy that are stretched or are flat out wrong. At the same time, the blogger who actually did break the story about Fred Goodwin and The Infinite Mind goes without credit.

1) Dawdy did not, as the posting maintains, "lead the way" with his reporting about The Infinite Mind and "inspire" Jeanne Lenzer and Sharon Brownlee to write their May 2008 Slate.com story about The Infinite Mind's "Prozac Nation: Revisited" episode. I am not sure from where that information came, but Jeanne Lenzer called me in late March 2008, immediately after the show aired, and weeks before Dawdy posted his first piece on The Infinite Mind on April 14, 2008, to discuss the program and issues she had about it that had been kicked around at a health journalism conference she attended. Jeanne and I also discussed her helping to produce a one-hour The Infinite Mind special on the subject of anti-depressants and suicide. When we turned down the idea of her doing the radio show, she and her co-author, Sharon Brownlee, wrote the Slate.com story. Therefore, to say that Lenzer's Slate.com story was "inspired" by Dawdy's reporting is not true.

2) Despite the implication that The Infinite Mind ceased production due to the November 2008 New York Times article, in fact the Times' story had nothing to do with the award-winning public radio series ending its 10-year run. The program, which was independently produced and distributed, had already announced to public radio stations before the New York Times story appeared that it would be ceasing production at the end of 2008 due to funding concerns.

3) The posting says that Dawdy "broke the [New York Times] story" about The Infinite Mind's former host, Fred Goodwin, but this couldn't be further from the truth.

Dawdy's focus with regard to The Infinite Mind was on issues related to anti-depressants and their links to suicide, and whether the program had erred by not disclosing the publicly-known pharmaceutical ties of three guests on a program that examined anti-depressants and suicide.

By contrast, the focus of the November 2008 New York Times article was the undisclosed acceptance by former host Dr. Fred Goodwin of $1.2 million in speaking fees from GlaxoSmithKline. To say that Dawdy broke that story is simply wrong.

In fact, the story of Goodwin's speaking fees was not broken by the New York Times nor Philip Dawdy. It first appeared on Ed Silverman's "Pharmalot.com" web site on November 20, 2008, prior to the Times posting it on their web site, and a full two days before the Times story went to print.

(See Silverman's story at http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/11/talk-is-not-cheap-npr-host-has-ties-to-pharma/ )

Silverman had the whole story first, including the spreadsheet from Senator Grassley's office that detailed the $1.2 million in payments to Goodwin. Silverman got the story from the same place the New York Times did: Senator Grassley, who had read all of the details of his office's investigation of Goodwin into the Senate record the day before, on November 19, including payments, speaking venues and radio programs that related to talks he had been paid to give. If anyone deserves the credit for the Goodwin story, it's Grassley's staff.

Finally, with regard to Dawdy's relentless attacks on The Infinite Mind for questioning what hard scientific evidence exists linking anti-depressants to suicide, I offer the following: in May 2008, the Slate.com article, critical of The Infinite Mind, was reviewed by STATS, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the George Mason University that works to improve the quality of scientific and statistical information in public discourse. STATS concluded that "The Infinite Mind needs to deal with the fact that it underplayed the risk [of antidepressants and suicide]; but Slate and Brownlee and Lenzer need to consider something less palatable: whether their approach to reporting this issue is putting, on balance, more lives at stake." The same, arguably, can be said about Dawdy and his writing on this story.

- Bill Lichtenstein

Comments

[DaveD]

I did perhaps undermine my point by making a few factual errors -- an interesting reflection, as you note, of the limitations of blogging -- but the errors made hardly NEGATE my point, which was that Dawdy and the Times each contributed in unique, complementary, and invaluable ways to the coverage of Zyprexa and Infinite Mind stories.

I did NOT, however, at any time call or suggest Dawdy should be considered a "one-man army" (as you imply by putting that phrase in quotes), nor did I accuse the Times of 'stealing' Dawdy's reporting. You seriously mischaracterize my thesis. It is not, as you suggest, that Dawdy is trod under by a big-footed institution that he "outreports". It is that both Dawdy and the Times contribute invaluable things, each unique to its perspective and position.

[Bill Lichtenstein]

David:

Thank you for your comments regarding "Who Broke the Fred Goodwin/The Infinite Mind Story."

In response:

1) As you point out in your comments, you may not have called Philip Dawdy a "one man army" (I added the quotes as it is a colloquial phrase), but you did call Dawdy a "one man op[eration]." There doesn't seem to be a substantive difference, is there?

2) More importantly, you claimed that Dawdy "broke" (your words) The Infinite Mind story, which "inspired" (your word again) the Slate.com article, and led to the New York Times article seven months later, which, you point out, never "cited" Dawdy.

In fact, Dawdy's initial April 14, 2008 story on The Infinite Mind criticized the radio show for stating there were no major research studies linking anti-depressants to suicide, something that he failed to provide evidence to dispute. This had nothing to do with Lenzer's story about the pharma ties of three guests, or the eventual Times story about host Fred Goodwin's pharma speaking fees. Yet, your implication is that the Times did an injustice by not crediting Dawdy for his postings.

By the way, Dawdy seems to have taken to heart your story that he is the journalistic muse of reporting on mental health and pharmaceuticals; he just posted what can only be called an on-line temper tantrum over the fact that he spoke with a reporter from Rolling Stone for a story on anti-psychotics, but wasn't credited in the eventual article. (See "Why I Won't Help Reporters, Authors Any Longer" at http://tinyurl.com/cryg2u )