Is Jeff Leeds in the doghouse at the New York Times, or is news related to the payola scandal so unnecessary that it gets shoved back to page 18 of the Business section (and behind the Circuits section)? Here's the Times' logic:

- Elliot Spitzer investigates payola scandal: Big news.
- A legendary independent radio promoter changes his business practices: Buried in the back, not enough drama to make it a good episode of C.S.I.

The controversy always makes headlines. The resolution is too often forgotten.

Leeds' article was about Jeff McClusky, "a music entrepreneur who emerged as an influential behind-the-scenes player in the 1990's by devising a technique to curry favor with radio programmers while sidestepping laws against bribery." McClusky notified the 30 stations that he dealt with and told them he would not renew the contracts that provide them with annual fees -- a fund of money from which stations would take promotional expenses that wasn't officially tied to the airplay of specific songs.

Spitzer's settlement with Sony BMG ended the practice of labels reimbursing promoters for their expenses. Effectively, the payola loophole had closed up. Though McCluskey could still work on retainer, he said he "did not want to interrupt the excellent promotion relationship I've had with Sony BMG labels."

The day's top story? How teens are using blogs at a growing -- some say alarming -- rate.