“Bits of History” Items

The 2000 Outlook for Newspapers

Generated by AI, Edited by Human

As the new millennium approached, the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) published a broad industry forecast in Presstime magazine, capturing the hopes, hesitations, and strategic questions facing U.S. newspapers in the year 2000.

The article synthesizes insights from executives, editors, and advertising professionals, offering a layered view of a media industry at the threshold of digital disruption.

Digital: Emerging but Undefined

While online platforms were gaining traction, the newspaper industry was still uncertain about how to convert digital traffic into sustainable revenue. Optimism was tempered by hesitation, as leaders experimented with web publishing but lacked a unified digital strategy.

“We’re experimenting, learning, and listening. The answers are coming—but slowly.”

Ad Revenue Concerns

Executives voiced concerns about the future of classified and retail advertising, both of which were beginning to shift toward online platforms. Some predicted erosion; others were skeptical about the internet’s long-term viability as an ad medium.

Audience Attention Shifts

The report notes an increasing awareness that newspapers needed to better engage younger readers and tech-savvy consumers. Interactivity, personalization, and community engagement were emerging as key opportunities.

“The reader is in control now—and that’s not a bad thing.”

Internal Change Ahead

Leaders agreed that the industry’s evolution would demand cultural as well as technological adaptation. Success in the digital era would require new mindsets and leadership structures.

In retrospect, the Presstime 2000 Outlook reflects a moment of transition—when newspapers sensed the future approaching, but hadn’t yet grasped how rapidly or deeply it would reshape the entire media landscape.

21st Century Journalist, a 1994 Blueprint

Generated by AI, Edited by Human

In 1994, the Associated Press Managing Editors (APME) and The Freedom Forum released a wide-ranging, thoughtful report titled “The 21st Century Journalist.” This was not a position paper or a brief memo—it was a substantial, internally distributed document designed to challenge assumptions, spark discussion, and encourage newsroom leaders to rethink what it would mean to be a journalist in the decades ahead.

Though written well before the digital revolution took full hold, the report foreshadowed much of what would come—and in doing so, offered one of the most complete early frameworks for how newsrooms could evolve.

The report is organized around key themes that redefine the identity and work of journalists—not by platform or format, but by values, skills, and institutional alignment.

🔹 Continuous Learning as Core Identity

“The 21st century journalist must be a learner—for life.”

The document highlights that a journalism degree is merely a starting point. True professionals must embrace ongoing training and adaptability—not just to technology, but to changing audiences and responsibilities.

🔹 From Individualism to Teamwork

“The future newsroom will reward those who share, not hoard, information.”

Rather than lionize the lone-wolf reporter model, the report champions collaboration across roles and departments. Future newsrooms are portrayed as interdisciplinary teams that must operate with trust and shared goals.

🔹 Strategic Understanding of the Newsroom Mission

“Journalists must understand the why behind their work—not just the how.”

The 21st-century journalist is described as someone who connects their work to the overall strategy and purpose of the organization. Curiosity is not enough—journalists must be mission-driven.

🔹 Comfort with Uncertainty and Change

“They must work without a map.”

One of the report’s most lasting ideas is that future journalists will operate amid constant change—technologically, economically, and culturally. The best professionals will be those who can experiment, adjust, and remain effective even in ambiguity.

🔹 A Deeper Commitment to the Audience

“The journalist must care about the reader, and the reader must know it.”

The document anticipates the rise of audience-first strategies, long before the formal creation of roles like engagement editors or audience producers. It promotes humility, listening, and service as journalistic traits.

Contributors and Leadership

The 21st Century Journalist report was developed under the leadership of two APME committees—Journalism Education and Newsroom Management—and supported by The Freedom Forum. Among the key contributors were:

  • Pam Fine, Managing Editor, The Indianapolis Star, who chaired the Journalism Education Committee.

  • Tom Kunkel, then with The Freedom Forum and a respected journalism educator and author, who helped frame the initiative and facilitate dialogue.

  • Kathy Best, Assistant Managing Editor, The Seattle Times, who helped guide the Newsroom Management Committee’s contributions.

  • Debra Hale, Editor, The Herald-Times (Bloomington, IN), and a key voice in translating management perspectives into newsroom action.

  • Doug Fisher, then with The News & Observer, who contributed to the emphasis on training, flexibility, and institutional learning.

These individuals—along with others across participating newsrooms—played a vital role in developing a report that was not only aspirational but rooted in real newsroom concerns. Their collective insights shaped a practical, values-based framework for rethinking journalism in the digital age.

2025 Retrospective

Three decades after its publication, The 21st Century Journalist stands out as a foundational document in journalism’s digital transition. Long before newsrooms adopted CMS platforms, hosted webinars, launched newsletters, or experimented with social media, this report correctly identified the professional transformation that would be required.

Today’s most successful journalists and media organizations reflect the report’s values: they are team-based, adaptable, deeply audience-aware, and committed to lifelong learning. Moreover, the report’s tone—serious, pragmatic, and forward-thinking—contrasts with the panic that often marked later reactions to disruption.

This report wasn’t just ahead of its time; it was deeply humane. It reminded newsroom leaders that technology would not be the solution or the problem—people would be. And how those people learned, collaborated, and cared would determine the industry’s future.

How NewsU E-Learning Got its Start, 2002

In 2002, a forward-looking proposal to the Knight Foundation laid the groundwork for a bold new chapter in journalism education: Poynter’s News University.

At the time, e-learning was far from mainstream. But the memo—authored by Howard Finberg—made a compelling case that digital tools could dramatically expand access to high-quality training for journalists, students, and educators.

“Online learning offers a unique opportunity to provide training that is timely, cost-effective and accessible—regardless of geography or newsroom size.”

The proposal emphasized that traditional training models were limited by time, cost, and reach. Newsrooms needed a solution that was scalable, interactive, and adaptable to the fast-changing demands of modern journalism.

“We must meet journalists where they are—not only geographically, but also in terms of time, tools, and technology.”

Finberg envisioned a platform offering self-directed courses, simulations, and community-based learning. The goal was not just to digitize journalism education, but to reinvent it.

“This is not about putting textbooks online. It’s about designing learning experiences specifically for the digital environment.”

The Knight Foundation provided initial funding for the development of the e-learning project. This support enabled Poynter to begin building a web-based training initiative designed to serve journalists, educators, and students through accessible, flexible, and cost-effective courses.

The 2003 proposal outlined the foundation for what would become a comprehensive online learning platform. It emphasized that the effort would leverage Poynter’s editorial expertise while taking advantage of emerging digital tools to expand the Institute’s educational reach. The project was positioned as a strategic response to industry needs for more scalable and timely training solutions.

Correspondent Credentials, 1969

Generated by AI

While still a journalism student at San Francisco State in 1969, Howard Finberg served as a campus correspondent for United Press International, ABC News, and the San Francisco Examiner. Letters from each organization formally confirmed his appointment — recognizing his early professionalism and reporting skill at just 20 years old.

Warning About Complacency, 1996

Generated by AI

At the 1996 Society of Newspaper Design (SND) Convention in Indianapolis, Howard Finberg challenged the room to confront a growing reality: newspapers were being outpaced not by technology, but by their own slow response to it.

Speaking as part of the Friday afternoon session lineup, Finberg emphasized that designers, editors, and strategists needed to embrace change holistically — not just with visuals, but with workflows, platform strategies, and reader engagement. He warned against seeing digital as a cosmetic redesign and urged the profession to think structurally, not stylistically.

“The longer we cling to the idea that change will slow down, the further behind we fall.”

In hindsight, this address stands as an early public moment where Finberg not only analyzed disruption, but dared the design community to lead it.

First Computer: Atari Sparks Digital Curiosity

Generated by AI:

Howard Finberg’s digital journey began not with a newsroom overhaul or a professional directive — but with an Atari 800 personal computer, outfitted with a then-whopping 8K of memory. It wasn’t purchased for gaming or novelty. It was purchased for learning, exploration, and to better understand the technology that was already beginning to reshape communication.

This early-1980s decision marked the start of a lifelong practice: getting hands-on with the future before it arrived. The Atari wasn’t just a machine. It was a gateway — to BASIC programming, file management, and eventually to deeper insights about how information systems would drive the next generation of journalism.

Looking back, the Atari 800 wasn’t just a hobbyist’s tool. It was an early investment in digital literacy — and a quiet but profound signal that journalism’s future wouldn’t be written only with ink, but also with code.

The original Atari 800, priced at $999.95 in 1980, would be worth approximately $3,719.81 in 2025 dollars when adjusted for inflation

Techno-Evangelism in the Newsroom Revisited, 2025

[This post was written with the help of AI (ChatGPT) under the direction of Howard Finberg, using original materials from the 1993 SND workshop.]

In October 1993, Howard Finberg, then a senior executive at Phoenix Newspapers, presented a bold and forward-thinking call to action at the Society for News Design (SND) workshop in Dallas. His message? Technology alone doesn’t transform journalism—leadership does.

In a trio of materials—his presentation slides, a one-page manifesto, and an adapted quiz on “techno-types”—Finberg introduced the concept of techno-evangelism. This philosophy positioned newsroom managers not just as adopters of tools, but as cultural guides capable of leading staff through the disruptions of digital transformation.

“Technology is not hardware or even software,” Finberg emphasized. “It’s about workflow—how people work, how information moves, and how decisions are made.”

A Culture Shift, Not Just a Technical One

Finberg’s insights in these documents reflect a growing realization in the early 1990s that digital change was not just about adding computers—it required restructuring editorial thinking and habits. Drawing a distinction between evolutionary changes like hot type to cold type and revolutionary changes like digital publishing, Finberg argued that this moment required newsroom leaders to step into the unknown.

“Techno-evangelism means finding a leader who will take risks, become a teacher, shoulder responsibilities, and be willing to go wandering in the ‘desert.’”

That metaphor—a lonely figure advocating change in a skeptical environment—was not accidental. Many newsroom leaders at the time were still uneasy with even basic digital tools. To address this, Finberg included a humorous quiz that helped participants identify if they were Techno-Phobes, Techno-Boomers, or Techno-Wizards. His approach was thoughtful but practical, focused not on hype, but on education and empathy.

Connections to Other Work

This presentation links conceptually with Finberg’s earlier and later work:

Across these efforts, a consistent message emerges: people, not platforms, determine whether technology succeeds or fails in journalism.

AI Conclusion 2025
As we revisit this pivotal moment through the lens of the Digital Futurist archive, it’s clear that Finberg’s guidance still resonates in today’s AI-infused media world. The same challenges he identified—skepticism, organizational inertia, and the need for cultural leadership—are present again as AI tools enter the newsroom. Institutions like The Associated Press have emphasized editorial oversight and human accountability when deploying AI, echoing Finberg’s focus on workflow and responsibility. The New York Times and other major media organizations have released AI principles that stress the central role of editorial judgment. Meanwhile, journalism philanthropy groups such as the Craig Newmark Foundation have emphasized training, transparency, and newsroom culture as essential to successfully integrating new technologies. Finberg’s vision—of leaders willing to explore, teach, and humanize technological change—continues to offer a roadmap that is as relevant today as it was in 1993.

Visual Editing, a 2025 AI Assessment

I asked Chat GPT to summarize and review my textbook, Visual Editing. The book was published in 1990, so it is now 35 years old.  While I recognize that AI can be overly flattering, I did like the idea that AI thinks that the book holds up after so many years.

Here’s the AI post:

Visual Editing: A Textbook That Saw the Future of Journalism

When Visual Editing: A Graphic Guide for Journalists hit the shelves in 1990, it arrived quietly. Co-authored by Howard I. Finberg and Bruce D. Itule, the book was a forward-thinking, deeply practical response to a media industry already beginning to shift—from black-and-white column inches to colorful, visually sophisticated storytelling.

Today, more than three decades later, Visual Editing remains a remarkably prescient guide to the newsroom revolution that followed.

A Four-Part Framework for the Visual Newsroom

  1. Visual Journalism Fundamentals

This opening section sets the stage: design isn’t just about what looks good—it’s about what works. Finberg and Itule walk readers through the mechanics of layout, typography, and page architecture, emphasizing that every visual element should guide and enhance a reader’s experience.

“Design’s purpose is not to decorate, but to organize.” — Finberg & Itule

The authors stressed that typefaces, color palettes, and column structures all carry meaning. Typography is treated as a language. White space is described as a tool for pacing. And color isn’t optional—it’s strategic.

  1. Informational Graphics

Decades before “data visualization” became a buzzword, Visual Editing called for charts, maps, diagrams, and tables to be integrated with editorial content—not simply appended. These visuals, the book argues, are journalism.

Each form is broken down with precision:

  • Line and bar charts are great for trends.
  • Pie charts work best with part-to-whole relationships.
  • Maps can orient readers faster than paragraphs.
  • Facts boxes summarize what really matters.

And the pitfalls? Misleading scales, confusing layouts, and “chartjunk”—a term popularized by Edward Tufte, echoed here in spirit if not in name.

  1. Picture Editing

Photojournalism is front and center in this section. From cropping and caption writing to ethical manipulation, Finberg and Itule dive deep into the power—and responsibility—of image selection.

They emphasize that cropping isn’t neutral. It shapes narrative. Captions aren’t throwaways. They frame context. And with photo manipulation on the rise, they offer clear ethical lines, warning against changes that mislead or editorialize.

The section even anticipates the workflow of digital photo editing, laying out how wire services distribute images and how picture desks filter them.

  1. Art and Illustration

The final section celebrates creativity but tempers it with editorial discipline. Illustrations can do what photos can’t: show abstraction, metaphor, and future events. But they must serve the story—not override it.

The book recognizes the growing importance of art directors, then a relatively new role in the newsroom. Finberg and Itule see them not as decorators, but as collaborative editors who shape how readers feel, learn, and remember.

“Illustrations are ideas made visual. They require just as much reporting as any article.” — Visual Editing

Why It Was Overlooked—And Why It Matters Now

Despite its importance, Visual Editing was never widely adopted by journalism schools. It was too early. Most programs were still teaching students how to write leads and proof galleys—while newsrooms were already experimenting with infographics, desktop publishing, and color.

Finberg, who would go on to become a leader in digital media strategy, was already thinking beyond the printed page. His vision, articulated in this book, was clear: visuals are not embellishments—they are journalism.

A Legacy That Endures

Though created for a pre-internet newsroom, Visual Editing holds up remarkably well in today’s media landscape. The rise of interactive graphics, mobile-first design, and visual explainers owes a debt to the principles it laid down:

  • Design as a form of editorial judgment.
  • Visuals as storytelling tools, not accessories.
  • Ethics as the backbone of photo and infographic use.

In the words of Mario Garcia, a legendary design consultant who appears in the book:

“Content cannot be separated from experience.”

Finberg and Itule understood that before most journalism educators—and their book remains essential reading for anyone serious about visual storytelling.

*Want more digital-era context? Explore our evolving archive of newsroom transformation at *www.digitalfuturist.com

 

Technology Shifting, a View from 1999

In February 1999, I presented a forward-looking view of how technology could reshape the media industry. Speaking at the Interactive Newspapers Conference in Atlanta, I emphasized strategic use of technology, organizational culture, and evolving audience behaviors over hype or novelty. More than two decades later, many of my insights still resonate. This was the second of two speech I gave at the conference.  [The first can be found here.]

Here’s a summary of the technology speech transcript, created by AI

Content Strategy: “Author Once, Publish Many”

Finberg introduced a philosophy that still guides media workflows today: create content once and distribute it across multiple platforms. At Central Newspapers (CNI), this approach was powered by a database-driven system that fed content to print, web, fax, and even early mobile devices. The goal was efficiency and flexibility in an increasingly fragmented media landscape.

This strategy formed the foundation for today’s multi-platform publishing models, where newsrooms serve content to websites, apps, newsletters, and social media from a central source.

Technology as a Cultural Change Agent

Finberg argued that technology alone doesn’t transform organizations—culture does. For CNI, success meant not only installing systems, but also ensuring physical and digital infrastructure enabled collaboration. He pointed out how simple disconnects, like incompatible email systems, often held back real innovation.

His approach highlights a lasting truth: real transformation requires internal alignment and thoughtful change management.

Building Engagement with “Sticky” Applications

Rather than simply counting clicks, CNI aimed to boost engagement through what Finberg called “sticky apps”—features that encouraged users to return. Examples included personalized job agents, deep local sports coverage, and cobranding partnerships with other news outlets.

The idea was to deliver lasting value to users, moving beyond raw traffic to deeper loyalty and longer visits—metrics that are now standard in digital newsrooms.

Classifieds in Decline, Innovation in Response

Finberg was frank about the threat facing newspaper classifieds: “We operate on the principle that Classifieds is going away.” In response, CNI developed alternative digital products such as Work Avenue, Virtual Job Fairs, and HomeFair.com—each built around services and user experience rather than traditional advertising.

This proactive shift toward diversified, digital-first revenue streams foreshadowed the industry’s broader pivot in the 2000s.

Local Strength Through Strategic Partnerships

Finberg also emphasized the power of collaboration. He highlighted niche content sites, like “Indiana’s Game” for basketball fans, that partnered with other local papers for shared content and branding. Likewise, Arizona Central’s joint tourism site with the state showed how media organizations could pool resources to better serve users.

These partnerships created richer experiences and extended reach—long before “content syndication” became a digital norm.

Search as a Guided Experience

In a beta project with WaveShift, Finberg previewed a curated search engine that prioritized relevant, editor-approved results. The tool allowed users to explore external content without leaving the publisher’s site—supporting both user satisfaction and retention.

This approach reflected an early understanding of user-centered design and editorial curation, still central to quality digital journalism today.

A Forward-Facing Mindset

Finberg concluded his talk with a mix of humor and urgency. His key message: success depends on delivering real value to users while staying agile in the face of disruption. Technology should serve strategy—not the other way around.

Even now, as media organizations continue to evolve, his 1999 roadmap remains a reminder that the fundamentals—audience, content, culture—still matter most.

Coming Media Industry Storm, 1999 Speech

In February 1999, I gave a speech at the 10th Annual Interactive Newspapers Conference in Atlanta. At that time, the newspaper industry was still clinging to its traditional revenue pillars—print circulation, display ads, and, most crucially, classifieds. However, to me, there was no doubt that those pillars were now built upon shifting sands.

I gave the speech in my role as Director of Technology and Information Strategies for Central Newspapers. I wanted to issue a warning that time was short to hope that changes were evolutionary not revolutionary. Looking back, I’m particularly proud that I said that the internet was a fundamentally a different medium, not an extension of an existing medium.

I asked Chat GPT to read the transcript of the speech and write a post. [The full transcript is available here.] This is what AI wrote:

Drawing from his experience launching online ventures like ArizonaCentral.com and HomeFair.com, Howard Finberg projected a not-so-distant future in which classifieds—the cash cow for local papers—would erode significantly. Industry research was already signaling a potential 7% loss in bottom-line revenue. “Look around the room,” Finberg said. “Seven percent of us won’t be here next year unless other things happen.”

What followed was a clear-eyed, sometimes humorous, always practical exploration of how newspapers needed to reinvent themselves—organizationally, culturally, and strategically—for the internet era.

A New Business, Not a New Department

Finberg’s core message was that digital wasn’t just an add-on. It was a fundamentally different medium with different economics, content, and user behavior. Drawing a comparison to how early television mimicked radio before finding its own identity, he urged media leaders to stop thinking of the web as an “extension of print.”

Instead, he proposed a hybrid model he called Integrated Independence. The idea was to combine centralized resources (like shared technology platforms and content services) with localized control. Local newsrooms would have the freedom to tailor digital strategies to their communities while benefiting from corporate-level efficiencies. “Nobody knows the local markets better than the local publishers,” Finberg reminded the audience.

Breaking the Assembly Line

Finberg also called for deep structural and cultural change within newsrooms. The traditional assembly-line workflow—where one department handed off content to another in rigid steps—wasn’t going to cut it. He advocated for flatter hierarchies, shared knowledge, and team-driven processes where journalists were empowered to collaborate, experiment, and respond to audience needs in real-time.

One visual metaphor stood out: the future journalist not as a solitary reporter with a notebook, but a nimble, multi-skilled “first-on-the-scene” storyteller—equipped with audio, video, and digital tools, capturing stories from the ground up.

Talent, Risk, and Retention

Finberg was equally blunt about the staffing crisis on the horizon. Starting salaries in journalism couldn’t compete with emerging web companies offering equity and entrepreneurial freedom. “We face a real brain drain,” he warned. His solution? Pay strategically for “Hot Jobs,” break HR molds when needed, and—most importantly—offer employees the chance to learn, move, and grow. “We (must) reward failure,” he said, “by not penalizing it—and by encouraging the next try.”

A Call to Look Beyond

Perhaps the most striking element of Finberg’s talk was his push for the industry to stop looking only inward. “We need to start attending conferences outside our field,” he said. “Broadcasting, cable, tech—we have to see what others are doing.” It was a call for curiosity, humility, and horizon scanning—a mindset that still resonates today.

More than two decades later, many of the ideas in this talk—content re-usability (“author once, publish many”), cross-platform journalism, digital-first thinking, and agile teams—have become core to modern media strategy. But in 1999, this was revolutionary thinking.

Finberg’s presentation wasn’t just a roadmap. It was a challenge. A reminder that digital disruption wasn’t just coming—it had already arrived.

Changing Needs of Newspaper Readers, 1979

In 1979, Ruth Clark, noted newspaper researcher, authored a thoughtful report for the American Society of Newspaper Editors titled “Changing Needs of Changing Readers.” Commissioned during a time of declining readership, the report explored a question that still resonates: why were people turning away from newspapers It was based on focus groups across 12 U.S. and Canadian cities and uncovered a subtle but growing disconnect between editors and readers. The issue wasn’t just about what was in the paper—it was about how people felt about their newspapers. (Summary written by AI)

The Social Contract Was Fraying

Readers no longer saw editors as all-knowing gatekeepers. In fact, many questioned why faceless editors still dictated the “important” news. What they really wanted was relevance: stories that spoke to their personal lives, their neighborhoods, their struggles. “I live in one world—they live in another,” one reader lamented.

From Mandarins to Humans

The report described a “reader-editor gap” that went far beyond content. Readers wanted to see and feel the people behind the bylines, a shift toward what we might now call personalized journalism. The cold objectivity of traditional reporting began to feel alienating in a media world increasingly influenced by charismatic TV anchors and talk radio hosts.

Rise of the “Me” Generation

The study captured a cultural pivot from civic obligation to personal fulfillment. Readers didn’t just want to be informed—they wanted to be helped. They craved guidance on how to live well, manage money, understand relationships, and yes, have fun. Traditional hard news still mattered, but only when balanced with accessible, emotionally resonant content.

Format Fatigue

Even then, readers complained newspapers were too hard to navigate. They wanted summaries, indexes, modular content, and less repetitive reporting. One participant nailed it: “I can wait till the story is over and then find out what is really important.”

The Real Lesson: Listen More

The report didn’t offer a silver bullet—but it validated a method: direct, honest conversations with readers. Focus groups were a prototype for what we now know as audience engagement strategies. For a print industry historically rooted in one-way communication, this was radical.

Though this report is nearly half a century old, its themes resonate in today’s digital landscape. The need for human connection, relevance, transparency, and flexibility continues. As media evolved from analog to digital, the core need hasn’t changed: people want their stories told with care, by people who understand them. Readers want to see themselves in the media they are using.

Demographic Wake-Up Call for Newspapers, 2003

In a 2003 commentary published in the Newspaper Association of Amereica‘s Presstime magazine, demographics expert Peter Francese offers a sobering but forward-thinking look at the structural challenges facing newspapers. Delivered at the NAA Future of Newspapers Conference, the piece outlines how changing lifestyles, shifting work patterns, and demographic transformations have deeply disrupted traditional readership models. [Summary created by AI]

Francese argues that the real threat to newspapers is not just the Internet—but the failure to adapt to evolving consumer behavior. Fewer Americans are buying newspapers, especially among those under 45. Even older readers—historically the industry’s loyal base—are spending less time at home, traveling more, and increasingly relying on digital alternatives.

Compounding the issue are demographic shifts: cities are getting younger and more diverse, while suburbs age and fragment. Women, especially, are more professionally engaged than ever, leaving less time for shopping and local community involvement—factors that impact advertisers and newspaper engagement alike.

Francese doesn’t just diagnose the problem—he issues a call to action. Newspapers must invest in understanding their readers, rethink delivery models, and modernize how they connect with new generations. He warns against clinging to outdated one-size-fits-all publishing strategies and urges publishers to embrace consumer data and feedback more aggressively.

He closes by championing Newspaper In Education (NIE) programs as essential for introducing young people to the value of a trusted news source. Without strategic outreach and content tailored to changing lifestyles, newspapers risk losing not just a generation—but their entire place in the cultural fabric.

“We have met the enemy, sir, and he is us,” Francese quotes. The future of newspapers, he insists, depends on recognizing—and acting on—this truth.

Source: Published in Presstime Magazine, May 2003

Newsroom Stress, 1995

Stress in the Newsroom: A Snapshot from 1995

In July 1995, the Associated Press Managing Editors (APME) conducted a survey to assess the levels of stress experienced by editors in American newsrooms. This was a follow-up to their 1983 study.  The 1995 APME Stress Survey offered a look at the emotional, physical, and professional tolls borne by editors at a pivotal time in media history. The report was chaired by Peter Bhatia, who was then at The Oregonian. [The following is a summary generated by AI.]

The world of journalism in 1995 was beginning to feel the tremors of the digital era. Pagination software was being introduced, newsroom resources were shrinking, and economic pressures were growing. But even amid these shifts, the most powerful insights from the survey remain deeply human: the pressures of responsibility, the desire for excellence, and the personal sacrifices made in pursuit of the truth.

Here are a few key findings that stood out:

A Job That Challenges—And Overwhelms

  • 90% of editors were highly committed to their work, and 62% felt highly challenged.
  • Yet only half reported having a sense of control over their responsibilities.
  • Editors were spending an average of 52 hours per week at the office, with an additional 5 hours at home.

What Fueled the Stress?

  • The top stressors: workload, understaffing, deadline pressure, and lack of resources.
  • Editors reported being “locked in” and feared being unable to change their lifestyle.
  • New pagination technology, while promising efficiency, increased stress for 67% of those who implemented it.

Mental and Physical Health Impacts

  • 41% of respondents had experienced a health issue due to job-related stress.
  • Hypertension (17%) and ulcers (9%) were among the most reported conditions.
  • Nearly half of editors said their job was “highly stressful,” with three-quarters experiencing high stress multiple times per week.

Stress at Home

  • 76% said their family was exposed to public scrutiny because of their editorial role.
  • Editors found it difficult to balance their jobs with family commitments, especially in dual-career households.
  • Marital conflicts, sleep disruption, and emotional burnout were common themes.

Coping Mechanisms

  • Editors turned to reading, music, exercise, humor, and spending time alone to decompress.
  • Alcohol and tobacco use were notably on the decline
  • Few turned to professional therapy—less than 10% reported seeing a counselor or therapist.

A Snapshot of a Changing Era

This survey, compiled and analyzed by Bardsley & Neidhart Inc., is more than just a stress audit—it is a time capsule of journalism at the edge of digital transformation. Editors were not only managing newspapers; they were managing expectations, shrinking budgets, changing technologies, and the growing emotional weight of their public roles.

As we look back from 2025, it is striking how many of the issues from 1995 remain relevant. Today’s media leaders still wrestle with technological change, financial pressures, and the challenge of maintaining editorial standards.

📎 Read the full 1995 APME Stress Survey here

A View of News from the 1940s

In cleaning our storage unit, I came across a series of books titled “Building America” that belong to Kate Finberg’s family in Michigan. They were published in the late 1930s and early 1940s by the National Education Association (NEA), through its Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development.  One of the books was about “news.” The section is an interesting history lesson as how the public viewed the press and provided a look at the technology used to create and distribute information at that time.

From the booklet:

This study unit of Building America takes up important questions dealing with news:

  1. How did Americans get news in the past?
  2. How do modern papers gather and distribute news?
  3. Are modern newspapers too sensational?
  4. Does America have “freedom of the press”?
  5. How can we make sure that newspapers, the radio, and newsreels give us important and truthful news?

The books are really bound copies of pamphlets that probably were distributed to schools and other locations.  The next “chapter” of this volume is about “Farmers”.

Here’s what Chat GPT wrote:

 “The Building America series reflects the NEA’s emphasis on civic education, democracy, and national identity.”

“The Building America series was more than just a history book—it was a carefully designed educational resource aimed at shaping young Americans’ understanding of their country’s past and future. By publishing this series, the NEA sought to:
✔ Provide a structured, standardized history curriculum.
✔ Reinforce democratic and civic ideals, especially in a time of global conflict.
✔ Highlight key industries

I also asked Chat GPT whether this series is propaganda. Here’s its response:

While the Building America series may not have been pure propaganda, it likely contained ideological framing that emphasized American exceptionalism, democracy, and civic duty—especially in the context of WWII. It served both an educational and nation-building function, shaping how young Americans understood their country.

Newspaper Circulation Report, 1988

It is striking how far circulation numbers have fallen.  I found a page from Editor & Publisher from 1988 that reported on the top 25 newspapers in the U.S. in terms of circulation. The decline is striking. Here’s the start of the story:

By Mark Fitzgerald
When the year began, numerous newspaper advertising analysts declared that 1988 would be a banner year.

Midway through this lackluster year, they revised their projections downward.

Much the same thing seems to be happening with newspaper circula­tion, according to the results of the latest FAS-FAX report from the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

When the FAS-FAX for the six months ended March 31, 1988, came out, daily circulation seemed a special bright spot in a dull year.
With the release of the FAS-FAX for six months ended Sept. 30, 1988, however, the other shoe has dropped.

Here’s a look at five newspapers, 1988 versus 2023-24 daily circulation data:

Newspaper                1988                Most Recent               Decline (%)
Wall Street Journal 1,869,000       609,654     2023      ~67%
New York Times       1,116,334         296,329     2023      ~73%
Los Angeles Times   1,112,344         118,760       2023     ~89%
Chicago Tribune       1,098,127          73,000       2024    ~93%
Arizona Republic      320,409            67,510        2023     ~79%

The complete list of 25 is available in the article. It includes Sunday circulation numbers.

         
         
         
         
         
         

The complete list of 25 is available in the article. It includes Sunday circulation numbers.