In an article appearing in the Columbia Journalism Review, former Chicago Reader staffer Edward McClelland discusses his view on the downfall of the venerable weekly alternative newspaper. Using a quote from the 2000 John Cusack film High Fidelity, McClelland says that the readership at the Reader aged out like mix tapes: the cool kids who read the paper grew up.

It is true that the fat, four-section Reader of a decade ago is gone, replaced by a one-section newspaper. It’s classifieds have apparently migrated to Craig’s List. RedEye and Time Out Chicago and online outlets now contest its entertainment listings.

I disagree with McClelland’s premise about the readership aging out. While it is true that the average age of the publication's readers has aged, that is not the key issue. My thoughts, the Reader failed to defend its core business. Unlike a daily, the core wasn’t and isn’t the journalism, but the listings and classifieds, which generated three thick sections. The Reader was slow to adapt to the Web, as McClelland points out. Its circulation template was copied by other publications and challenged by the launch of RedEye. Its advertising poached by online entities with much lower costs and greater print competition, particularly from RedEye.

To give just one example, couldn’t the Reader of that era, just a few years ago, have launched an answer to RedEye? It must have been obvious that with the launch of Metro and other free publications across the globe, that with the incredible amount of ads sold by the Reader, that it had a very desirable niche.

The Reader didn’t defend its turf. In fairness, maybe it couldn’t defend its turf because it lacked key resources. But it has a history of not reacting to market changes.