The reason this is noteworthy is not because of what it says about the Romney campaign itself but about how the media views the state of the campaign.
When a candidate is seen by the media as winning, articles start appearing describing that campaign as a smoothly running machine. When a candidate is seen a losing, reports emerge about problems within its staffers, detailing personality clashes, lack of direction, etc. Very often there is no substantive difference in the actual campaigns themselves. In fact, if Romney should suddenly take the lead, you would likely see the stories reversed and the Obama campaign would be portrayed as the one in disarray with the Romney campaign portrayed as strategic geniuses.
There is one significant difference between winning and losing campaigns though, and that arises due to the fact that senior campaign operatives are often merely hired guns who have no deep loyalty to the candidate they serve. They always have one eye on the next job and if they feel that the candidate they are currently working for is going down the tubes, they will try to get the word out that it was not their fault and that their advice was not taken by those higher up. Hence losing campaigns give reporters more fertile fields to mine for insider gossip. Winning campaign staffers have no such need to cover themselves since they all bask in the reflected glory and will be sought after for future campaigns. Why risk being booted off a winning campaign for being indiscreet?
So the reason that for a campaign falling behind may not be poor execution by staffers. It is usually that the candidate is, for whatever reason, not appealing enough to voters.