“Future” 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.

Future of Journalists in 21st Century ( via 1994)

In 1994, the American Society of News Editors (ASNE) in partnership with the Freedom Forum  provided a report on journalism’s evolution into the 21st century. The document contains insights regarding the anticipated transformations within the industry, particularly in response to technological advancements and shifting audience behaviors. However, some projections were either only partially realized or did not materialize as expected.

Key Insights the Report
  1. Digital Transformation & the Internet
    The report correctly foresaw the growing importance of digital platforms, predicting that online news consumption would reshape journalism. It acknowledged the potential of the internet to expand access to news and create new journalistic formats.
  2. Ethical Challenges & Credibility Concerns
    There was a strong emphasis on maintaining journalistic integrity in an increasingly fragmented media landscape. Concerns about misinformation, the speed of news dissemination, and editorial responsibility were highlighted—issues that have become even more pronounced in today’s digital age.
  3. Changing Audience Expectations
    The report predicted a shift in audience engagement, recognizing that readers would demand more interactivity, customization, and multimedia elements in their news consumption.
  4. Corporate Ownership & Commercial Pressures
    There was an awareness of the growing consolidation of media ownership and the risks of editorial independence being compromised due to commercial interests.
Assumptions That Did Not Materialize

Just as interesting as to the insights, were the assumptions that did not come to pass.

  1. Sustained Dominance of Print Media
    While the report acknowledged the rise of digital media, it underestimated the rapid decline of traditional print journalism. It assumed newspapers would remain a primary news source, supplemented by digital rather than largely replaced by it.
  2. Public Willingness to Pay for Quality Journalism
    The expectation that consumers would sustain journalism through paid subscriptions proved only partially correct. While paywalls and digital subscriptions exist, the widespread reliance on free content and advertising-based models was not fully anticipated.
  3. Journalists as Gatekeepers of Information
    The document maintained the assumption that professional journalists would retain their role as the primary arbiters of truth. However, the rise of citizen journalism, social media influencers, and decentralized news distribution has significantly altered the landscape.
  4. The Role of Traditional News Organizations in Shaping Public Discourse
    While legacy media outlets were expected to remain central to public discourse, they now compete with a vast array of alternative news sources, many of which operate outside traditional journalistic norms.

The summary was produced using ChatGPT and reviewed by a human [Howard Finberg].

State of Newspapers on the Web, 2001

A 2001 report by the research company The Yankee Group has some very interesting observations about the future of the print media in the online world.  From the summary:

Our Interactive Consumer (IAC) Survey 2000 reveals that online consumers are going to the Web in search of news content. One quarter of online consumers rank looking for national news as one of their top three activities online, and 35% visit their local newspaper online at least daily or once a week. While newspapers have been subjected to harsh criticisms in regard to their online strategies over the past few years, they have a lot to bring to the table in the online world, especially when it comes to serving their local communities.

A very optimistic view of the ability of many newspaper publishers and companies to leverage their content into a new medium.  The report correctly, in my opinion, highlighted some of the challenges that newspaper companies face:

  1. Commoditization: The immediacy and dynamic nature of Web content has pushed journalistic deadlines to seconds rather than minutes and has made news so readily available that not only is it “old” as soon as it is posted to a Web site, but it has become a commodity. We are reaching a point when consumers can get their news whenever and however they want it. This poses a significant threat to print newspapers because consumers have more sources to turn to for their news than ever before.

  2. Sluggish Migration of Newspapers to the Online Channel: Although some newspapers such as the San Jose Mercury News, which started publishing its Mercury Center site (now known as bayarea.com) online through AOL in May 1993, are considered by many to be Internet pioneers in the newspaper industry, others have been slower to develop their online strategies. The Newspaper Association of America estimates that approximately 10% to 20% of all daily newspapers still do not have an online presence.

  3. Cannibalization of Subscription Revenues: One of the most serious charges levied against online newspaper editions over the past few years is that of cannibalization. By offering news online for free, newspapers–so the theory goes–are in effect cannibalizing and killing their print sales channel. In addition, most of the content offered in the print edition is also offered online. Given this situation, why would consumers choose to maintain a subscription to the print edition when they can receive the newspaper online for free? This argument has also fueled speculation that the Internet will cause the demise of the print newspaper industry.

Interestingly, the report didn’t write much about the cannibalization of advertising revenues, especially classified advertising.

Electronic Newspaper of the Future, 1992

One of the more innovative folks in the design universe was a professor from Spain, Dr. Juan A. Giner.  Giner was at the School of Journalism  at the University of Navarra. In 1992, he asked several folks for their thoughts about electronic newspapers.  This is before the Internet.  I think he was using some of the information for a research paper and for a presentation at the Summit Meeting of Editors and Publishers, a European conference, I’m guessing.

Here’s what I wrote, the conclusion of my thoughts, sent via FAX:

They have information to sell, regardless of the form it takes to reach the reader. Unfortunately, only a few see the road ahead; too many are looking behind at the road they have just traveled.

If the current leadership fails in understanding the market place or fails to adjust to the needs of the news consumer, then the consequences will be two-fold:

• Many more companies will go out of business.
• Many more companies will be bought by those who understand the needs of the marketplace and replace those publishers and editors who do not.

The future will belong to the quick and smart. Be neither quick nor smart and you’ll be out of the game.

It was fun to think about the future.

Looking to the Future: 1986 to 2001

In the past, journalism conventions serving management and editors, such as the Associated Press Managing Editors conference, were major events.  Hundreds of participants, dozens of panels and speeches.  So important that the APME published what the called the “Red Book.”  This was a record of the proceedings so those who could not attend would learn what was discussed.

In 1987, the Red Book reported on a panel held in Cincinnati, OH, on “Newspapers After 2001.”  The panel was tasked to look ahead 15 years.  Among the participants:

  • James K. Batten, president, Knight-Ridder, Inc.
  • Louis D. Boccardi, president and general manager, The Associated Press
  • John J. Curley, president and chief executive officer. Gannett Newspapers
  • Katherine W. Fanning, editor, Christian Science Monitor
  • Jeff Greenfield, media critic and columnist, ABC
  • James Hoge, president, New York Daily News
  • C.K. McClatchy, president, McClatchy Newspapers
  • Burl Osborne, president, Dallas Morning News
  • Eugene C. Patterson, chairman and chief executive officer, Times Publishing Company, St. Petersburg, Fla.
  • William O. Taylor, chairman and chief executive officer. Boston Globe
  • Chris Urban, Urban and Associates 

Reading over this edited transcript of the discussion, I was struck how little the panel got right. In fact, I think most of them missed the speeding “technology bus” that was about to crash into their newsprint based business and scatter their profits and employees to the wind. There was discussion about the declining readership — one panelist suggest the industry encourage literacy — and the fragmented advertising market. There were a couple of notable mentions of technology.  Here’s one from Kay Fanning:

We’re being increasingly bombarded by trivia and through the progress of technology it will get worse and worse. With all the world coming to our back door in terms of satellite communications and transportation, the link-up of the global stock market, all aspects of computer networking, newspapers will need a content that offers the citizen a pathway through this hail of trivia. That content will require more substance, more quality, offer more understanding rather than just a lot of information. I believe in the simple bromide of the better mousetrap. If we have a quality that is relevant to the citizens and to the public interest we can easily raise the numbers from 40 to 60 percent. 

I did like the comments from John Curley about improving the visuals of newspapers to make them more appealing:

Presentation is part of it too. Color, graphics, and our ability to do more in that area will be important. I don’t mean to pick on the Cincinnati Inquirer, since we own it, but in yesterday’s paper we went 11 pages in the Life Section without a graphic or photo. and a lot of the contents suggested that there could have been some there. I don’t think that is atypical of most newspapers, and it’s a weakness in a lot of our newspapers too.

Curley was the first editor of USA Today, hence he knew about color and graphics. USA Today was launched four years earlier, in 1982. in 1988, the American Press Institute had a major design seminar looking at the future of newspapers. It was called Design 2000.  Details are elsewhere on this site.  Lots of graphics and color in those prototype newspapers.

TV News’ Future

Also at the convention was Lawrence Grossman, president of NBC News. He gave a talk on “Television News After 2001.” He was sort right when he said:

My thesis is that if you look 15 years ahead to the year 2001, it will be much like what we see now in television news, just as when you look back to 1970, television news was basically like what you’re seeing now.

But take that out a few more years and he was very, very wrong.  He got a few things right.  It was an interesting read.

Michael Bloomberg on Newspapers

Michael Bloomberg, president and founder of Bloomberg Financial Markets gave a keynote speech at the International Winter Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in 1997.  His speech was about the future of electronic devices and he spent a lot of time talking about newspapers and whether there’s an electronic solution that would make consumers give up on print. [That’s why I’m posting his speech]. An excerpt:

And if we are going to build consumer products, if our businesses are going to grow and let electronic devices replace newspapers they are going to have to provide the same functionality. Now another answer to the problem would be don’t let radio and television become the substitute for newspapers. But find some way to make newspapers more valuable, more economic. And if you think about it, it is a very easy thing to do. Right now we go and we chop down an awful lot of trees in Canada, we haul them to the mill, we grind them up into paper, we put ink on it, we deliver it to the comer newspaper stand or the newspaper boy or girl throws it on your doorstep. You read it once and you throw it away. It is a phenomenally inefficient thing screaming for a technological solution.

Bloomberg also so the coming of streaming television:

No matter how many times people tell you that broadcast is here to stay, the feet of the matter is it is not here to stay. It is so compelling to be able to get what you want, when you want it, independent of everybody else that we are going to give you video on demand no matter what it costs and no matter who’s axe gets gored and people will try to protect their industries. They will try to protect their jobs, but the feet of the matter is, if you look at the public, the public has the interest in getting a movie they go to Blockbuster, they want to see it when they want to see it. The public even goes to the comer movie theater to see it when they want to see it. The public wants to be able to jump over commercials, which is going to be a very big problem. Who is going to pay for all of this? The public wants to be able to stop that football game for two minutes when the phone rings or when the diaper needs changing. And we are going to have to deliver those kinds of products, those facilities, those attributes for television.

His speech had some good visionary moments.

The Future: Embracing Change

In 1999, the Society for News Design published a handbook for editors about dealing with pagination and technology. I was asked to write a chapter about “the future” and embracing the changes new technology would bring.

Some of the things I got right:

  • Working at home, even doing newspaper design
  • Always connected to a network
  • Using databases to edit and present content
  • Constant feedback on what consumers are reading

Here’s the opening to the chapter:

Firing up her monitor with a verbal “log on” command, Kate gets ready for the daily meeting with her fellow editors and a managing editor at The Republic.

Almost instantly, her monitor is on the “virtual network” and eight images of her co-workers start to appear. Three are at home; two are at remote or shared offices. One is on the road with his team covering a live event. The rest are at the paper’s head­quarters building.

After discussing reports from the teams that worked the previous “info cycles” – each cycle is four hours and there are teams working around the clock – Kate and her fellow editors start the business of producing material for The Republic.

She doesn’t have a computer in her house, only a 27-inch flat-screen that is about one inch thick and connected to The Network. Everything is on The Network: broadcast entertainment signals, written communications and voice messages.

It was a fun assignment.  Thank you, Olivia Casey.

The Future, a 1997 Memo

This is a memo I wrote to fellow executives at the Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette in early 1997.  It outlines some of my views on the importance of online services and about the reorganization of a newsroom to have a great mix of skills among editors.

The overall direction that I see journalism [and journalists] heading in the next five to 10 years is one of multi-skilled individuals. These will be the people that will succeed and prosper in the next century. In a sense, we will be going back to our roots – the small town publisher/editor/reporter/ad salesman – to find models that put more responsibility for all aspects of journalism in the hands of the source. If good journalism is good story telling, let’s put all the story telling tools into everyone’s hands and give them the access to information to help tell their stories.

I’m pleased that I was right on some of the points I raised, albeit a bit too optimistic.

Convergence and the Corporate Boardroom

In early December 2002, I published an article for Poynter Online based on a speech I gave at the opening of Newsplex, a prototype newsroom of the future, at the University of South Carolina. Newsplex was a cooperative project between private and public media organizations and academia at the USC’s College of Mass Communications and Information Studies.

My topic was convergence and the changing media corporate culture. I talked about how before convergence can succeed in the newsroom, it has to be adopted in the boardroom, where major cultural and business changes are also needed.  Here’s a taste of the article:

The bigger issue isn’t whether we can change the corporate culture of the boardroom to embrace convergence. Rather, it’s the need to focus on learning and adjusting the characteristics of the entire organization.

With education we can affect the learned behaviors of the media industry’s leaders, its journalists and other workers.

And when I talk about the media industry leaders, I am not talking about just the people who sit in the boardrooms. Leadership includes managers and staff members, who actually can be more influential than their bosses.