"The wheel's still in spin, and there's no tellin' who that it's namin'," a very young Bob Dylan sang in one of his earliest and most famous songs – the 1963 anthem of social transformation, "The Times They Are A-Changin'."

More than four decades later, phrases from Dylan's voluminous songbook are still quoted to underscore one point or another on any number of contemporary topics. So why not do it to describe the uncertain state of American newspapers?

Reading news and analysis about the newspaper industry in recent weeks brought to mind the singer's line about the spinning wheel – a vivid image of a fate that's still pending, an outcome that remains undecided.

Another way to sum up all the contradictory developments and pronouncements is that, taken together, they didn't coalesce into a clear picture of newspapers' future. Indeed, things sometimes seemed unsettled and confusing enough to make your head spin. Mine, anyway.

Are newspapers a dying institution? Or are they merely in a painful interval of flux? Take your pick – you'll have smart, insightful company either way.

Will investigative and other resource-intensive reporting return to prominence? Well, maybe. Or will newspapers keep dumbing down and cutting costs in hopes of stanching their losses? That point of view certainly has supporters.

Is the end of the road in sight for newspapers and the significant public affairs journalism that they, more so than any other medium, provide? Or is the bright online future that internet boosters promise for that crucial form of journalism already here, albeit morphing daily into unexpected new forms?

Answers to such questions are still far from clear. Or, to borrow Dylan's youthful words once again, there's no telling.

Consider a recent announcement of the 2005 Pulitzer Prizes as a starting point. One Romenesko item about the prizes was headlined "Pulitzer judges have put a premium on watchdog journalism," and linked to a story in The Washington Post. It reported that New York Times editor Bill Keller (whose paper won three Pulitzers) had called Post editor Leonard Downie Jr. (whose paper won four) to congratulate him, and had said that the judges placed "a premium on watchdog journalism – on journalism that demonstrated the press standing up to power, often with substantial consequences."

That was a message that could be easily inferred from the Pulitzer decisions – and one that might well give hope to journalists yearning for such a development in the hope that might help persuade managers at other newspapers – smaller and less prominent – to recommit themselves to energetic "watchdog journalism."

So is it safe to conclude that a widespread return to the watchdog role is suddenly the trend of the moment? No, not if you judge from remarks the week before at San Jose State University by Terence Smith, a special contributor to PBS' "NewsHour" and former Washington correspondent for CBS and The New York Times, among other distinguished journalistic roles.

Describing not just newspapers, but the "news business" in general, Smith declared that "serious news is being shortchanged and crowded out by the frivolous and downright silly." The reason, in his view (the view of many others, it should be added) – "a perfect storm of economic pressure, consolidation of ownership, fragmentation of audience and self-inflicted ethical crises."

The "net result," Smith said, is simply "a nationwide reduction in news-gathering," with the big city newspaper "an especially threatened species." He pointed to Philadelphia as a prime example, where "the number of working reporters out gathering the news on any given day has declined from 500 to 220 in the last 25 years."

In another early song, Dylan admonished a lover that "it ain't no use to sit and wonder why" he was leaving her. In newspapers' current troubling situation, however, it does make sense to figure out why things are as they are ­ and, even more importantly, what to do about it down the road. As the latest downward circulation numbers showed, time may be running out.