Was the decline of journalism fate?

Over at the American Journalism Review, Paul Farhi argues that the decline of journalism was essentially inevitable and there was nothing that could have been done. His point is summarized in his title: “Don’t Blame the Journalism: The economic and technological forces behind the collapse of newspapers.”

Newspapers are in trouble for reasons that have almost nothing to do with newspaper journalism

I don’t agree and I think that Paul overstates his case. Yes, there is no doubt that significant economic and technological forces are in play. But that doesn’t mean that the managers and owners of journalism enterprises are exempt from responsibility for the impending collapse of their industry. Adjusting to change is the function of leadership and management. It’s the opposite of the kind of profit-maximizing management that monopoly daily newspapers functioned under for years.

Note that in the case of both Gannet (GCI) and McClatchy (MNI) (as well as many others) newspaper management opted to pay dividends to holders rather than investing in the reinvention of their business. Even as the stock price sharply dropped, the usual dividends were paid. What might have happened if that money had been invested in new technologies and audience development?

The cost structures and barriers to entry that made the daily newspaper such a successful monopoly are now standing in the way of necessary changes for survival. The current state of newspaper economics has more to do with profits than with fate.

Update:

Jeff Jarvis attacks the premises in Paul’s analysis and writes, “It is our fault.”

Update 2:

The thinkers writing at Xark offer at least10 reasons why newspapers won’t reinvent news. I think they are on target.