“Journalism” Items

21st Century Journalist, a 1994 Blueprint

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.

Front Pages from the Kennedy Assassination

The United Press International published a collection of front pages from the four days following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Sixty years later it is remarkable look at American journalism and the power of the front page. And it is also a reminder of how many newspapers have been lost [closed, merged] since that time.  The magazine’s publisher wrote this about the collection:

FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER
The responsibility of the American Newspaper to give its readers accurate, swift, and in this case, tragic and appalling news, was never met with greatwr skill and devotion than on the four days of November 22, 23, 24, and 25, 1963.

Despite the awesome pressure of meeting deadlines under such sorrowful conditions, millions of words poured from reporters’ typewriters, thousands of copy editors checked stories they never wanted to see. In the so-called “back shops” of newspapers, large medium and small, linotype operators punched keys which rec­orded for all to read a story which even the typesetters could hardly believe. Pressmen assembled plates which should never have been needed, and pushed the button which triggered the high whine of a high-speed press.

Deliverers delivered newspapers to newsboys and news merchants who sold them to readers who didn’t want to believe the headlines they saw were true.

Other items are listed here.

Writing/Graphics: Serving the Reader

In 1988, under the direction of Mario Garcia, The Poynter Institute held a seminar titled: Writing/Graphics: Serving the Reader. This three-day seminar kicked off with an opening “debate” between Garcia and Roy Peter Clark, associate director of the Institute. It was called “The Great Debate: Words vs. Pictures or Who’s on First?” The keynote was by Ed Miller, former editor of the Allentown Call-Chronicle, one of the more innovative newspapers at that time.

I had the honor of doing one of the morning breakout sessions: Collaborative Learning in the Newsroom. Frankly, I don’t remember the session but I’ll look around for my notes and maybe the presentation I used.  At that time I was assistant managing editor of The Arizona Republic.

Interesting footnote: A few days after this seminar, I would be at the American Press Institute seminar on the future of design in 2000

Big City Newspaper: Chicago Tribune in 1975

The Chicago Tribune Marketing Department, sometime in 1975 [my guess] produced a guide to the newspaper for the educational services department of the company. It was a look, written for consumers [young ones] about how the Tribune was created — from reporter to editor to presses. The guide even had instructions on how to fold a newspaper page into a pressman’s hat. What’s nice about this guide is the photographs of so many of the people I remember working with. [And it does have a picture of me looking at a picture page.]

The Tribune at this time was publishing both morning and afternoon editions.  We called it the 24-Hour Tribune.  There were even t-shirts. Here’s a bit about that unique time:

In 1974, the Chicago Tribune became a 24-hour newspaper with fresh editions morning, afternoon and evening. The shift from being a morning newspaper to the24-hour publication cycle meant that The Tribune was available whenever a reader wanted it.

The publishing cycle begins in late afternoon with the Green Streak edition which contains late stock market quotations. Next off the press is the Midwest edition, designed primarily for circulation outside Chicago and suburbs.

The Three Star Morning Final comes next–it’s the edition you’ll find delivered to your doorstep in the mornings. The Four Star Morning Sports Final follows; you’ll find it on the newsstands in the morning with the night’s sport results. The Five Star Morning Turf Final is available later in the morning. Completing the 24-hour publication cycle is the afternoon 7 Star Final for afternoon home delivery customers and afternoon newsstand sales.

The publisher at the time of publication was Stan Cook; the editor was Clayton Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick was the person who hired me in 1972. There a nice picture of Bill Jones, one of the best editors at the paper during my tenure. Jones, who became managing editor, died way too early at age 43.

If you want a look at what it took to produce a daily newspaper, this is a good guide. For me, it is fond memories.

Constant Training: New Normal or Missed Opportunity

As part of the grant to The Poynter Institute for the creation and running of News University, an online training program, the Knight Foundation asked that we conduct studies as to how effective training was and better understand the training needs of journalists. One study was called “Constant Training” and it was based on a survey of newsrooms and journalists.  Here’s what I wrote in the introduction:

These results are from an anonymous survey of staff members from 31 newsrooms around the country conducted by The Poynter Institute on behalf of the Knight Foundation.

The survey was conducted in newsrooms that ranged in size from 20 to 150 staff members. More than 1,650 staff members were possible participants for the survey, which achieved a 72.5 percent response rate. The survey was conducted online in June-July 2014.

Is the glass two-thirds full? Or, more important to ask, is it one-third empty?

A third of the journalists in the survey [34 percent] said they received no training in the past 12 months. But the numbers varied widely in different newsrooms. While in some newsrooms, nearly everyone had gotten training, in one newsroom, only 17 percent reported receiving training. In six of the newsrooms, less than half of the staff members had received training. Considering the abundance of free or low-cost training available, those numbers seem strikingly high.

One of the key findings was the hunger journalists had for training.  However, then, as in now, time or the lack of time, was a key factor as whether journalists got the training they needed or wanted.

This raises the point that everyone, especially journalists, lives in a world of constant learning. Each new technology creates new opportunities and new challenges. Which create new openings for training. To be successful in the digital world, a journalist needs to embrace the idea of “constant training” to meet the changing demands of the workplace.

Other results from our training survey are more troubling.

Actually doing the training presents a significant problem. Lack of time was cited by 62 percent of the participants as the number-one factor that prevented them from getting the training they needed or wanted. That’s twice as many responses as lack of funds, the second-place factor, which was selected by 34 percent.

One final point involved the focus of newsrooms in 2014:

The survey also provides an unsettling insight into the focus of the newsrooms surveyed. The journalists surveyed still see their newsrooms as print-centric or straddling the fence. Only one in 10 said that their newsrooms are thoroughly
“digital-first.”

Eric Newton wrote the introduction to the report.

Being Part of the News

While in journalism school at San Francisco State University, I was stringer for United Press International. UPI was the second largest wire service in the U.S. during the 1970s.  It was a tradition that one of the college newspaper editors would be a UPI stringer and so I was.  A former SFSU graduate worked as a reporter at UPI and he would often call and ask for a bit of “string” for national stories.  String was just another way of saying comments from around the country that could be woven into a large round-up story.

One such story that not only did I provide string but provide a quote that was in the story involved the firing of Lt. Gen. Lewis B Hershey in 1969.  Hershey was the head of the selective service  system, the draft, and a hated official during the Vietnam war. 

Here’s my quote:

“It’s great that Hershey as a personality is finally getting out,” said Howard Finberg, 20, a student at San Francisco State College. “But the system is still wrong, and that’s what needs to be corrected.”

The image is the wire service teletype copy that was set to newspapers and other subscribers of the UPI national wire. 

This was an interesting period to be a journalist and cover the Vietnam war era turmoil on your own campus.

Chicago Tribune Publishes Watergate Tapes in 1 Day, 1974

One of the moments of journalism history that I had a chance to live was the Chicago Tribune’s publishing of some of the Nixon White House tapes – the Watergate tapes – in 1974. It was also a moment where I was so very proud of the Tribune and its management and staffers.

The paper created a 44-page supplement that contained every word of the transcripts. And it was done in a single day. The remarkable inside story about that publishing achievement was capture by the Tribune’s in-house publication, “The Little Tribune.”  The June 1974 edition is full details and names. For example:

After the decision was made, [editor Clayton] Kirkpatrick immediately contacted Maxwell McCrohon, managing editor; Frank Starr, chief of the Washington bureau; and Charles Parvin, assistant news editor then on duty, and instructed them to begin work on the project.

Because a decision had to be made quickly on how the transcript would be printed, a team of five editorial and production men was sent by Tribune plane to Washington’s Dulles airport to meet Frank Starr who would bring copies of the transcript.

Parvin contacted Dick Leslie, an assistant news editor, at his home about 10: 30 p.m. and asked him to round up two other men for the trip. Leslie called Bob Finan, editorial production coordinator, and George Cohen, Book World production man, who had experience with setting copy in cold type. John Olson, vice president and general manager, phoned Fred Hemingston, composing room superintendent, and Fred contacted Pat Ryan, engraving superintendent.  

This is a great story about the power of journalism.  The Tribune managed to print the transcripts BEFORE the official government printing office.

P.S. I was also proud to play a small role as a picture editor.

[art director Gus] Hartoonian and [art director Tony] Majeri created several designs for page 1, and one of them was selected by McCrohon. The front page story for the section was written by James O. Jackson, reporter, and Casey Banas, assistant to the editor, prepared the Transcript Index. Howard Finberg, assistant picture editor, located and sized photographs for page 1, inside and back pages, and ordered Velox prints from the engraving department. [picture editor Chuck] Scott asked photographer Chuck Osgood to take the special front page picture of the tapes.

Celebrating The Republic’s Centennial: How We Worked

In 1990 The Arizona Republic celebrated its 100 years — its centennial. There were many different projects that I had role in editing and/or coordinating. It was a once in a lifetime project. One of the projects involved a full page timeline [called “Paper Route”] of how a story is reported, written and edited. In addition, how do photographers and others in the newsroom work to create the still ‘daily miracle.’

Journalism Should Give Voice to the Voiceless

As part of the development of The Poynter Institute’s international strategy, I traveled to Istanbul with colleague and friend Vicki Krueger.  We launched Poynter NewsU Turkiye at a news conference.  At that event was our partner, the Media Association, and the US Consulate in Istanbul.  The Consulate is the funder for the project.  After the news conference I was interviewed by the local English-language newspaper, Sunday’s Zaman.  Here’s part of what they wrote:

According to Finberg, journalism means “providing voice to the voiceless” and is a way of helping people understand what is going on around them. “Journalists are responsible for protecting the interest of the audience, citizens,” Finberg said when asked whether the journalists have a duty to protect state interests.

Journalists in Turkey have a difficult time, as the country is undergoing political stress and strain that often pits one media organization against another.

The full interview is on the newspaper’s Website , or at least it was. Better to access it as a PDF.

Crisis at San Francisco State: Instant Book

Going to school at San Francisco State University was a great and unusual journalism education.  What made it special was not the classroom work, which was good.  The real training was in covering the drama in the hallways, the excitement on the campus commons and the turmoil on the streets.  My journalism education was attending a college that saw the longest campus strike in United States history.  Here’s how the SFSU describes the strike, some forty years later:

…the five-month event defined the University’s core values of equity and social justice, laid the groundwork for establishment of the College of Ethnic Studies, and inspired the establishment of ethnic studies classes and programs at other universities throughout the country.

The Black Student Union and a coalition of other student groups known as the Third World Liberation Front (TWLF) led the strike, which began Nov. 6, 1968 and ended March 20, 1969. Clashes between the strikers and San Francisco Police tactical squads made national news. Students, faculty and community activists demanded equal access to public higher education, more senior faculty of color and a new curriculum that would embrace the history and culture of all people including ethnic minorities.

Those clashes between strikers and police were covered by professional and student journalists.  For students it was a great training ground, as you could compare your work against the professionals.  After the strike, a number of journalism students, most of whom worked on the journalism department’s newspaper Phoenix, wanted to publish a more interpretive look at events.

We decided to publish a magazine or “instant book”.  I was the publisher and editor.  But one of driving forces was Steve Toomajian.  His writing and hard work helped make the concept a reality.

We called the publication “Crisis at SF State.”  We got some money from a distributor, found a printer and published in the summer of 1969 [I think]. Actual dates have been lost. The book is still in a few libraries, but the publication mostly lost in the dustbin of history.  Here’s Stanford University’s library record:

Cover title: An interpretive look at San Francisco State College crisis… A collection of articles, essays, interviews, and photographs on the student strikes at San Francisco State College, 1968-1969.

I also put a copy in the library at The Poynter Institute. And I’ve posted a copy on this site.

Journalists in Charge of Their Own Training

As part of the push to launch Poynter News University, aka NewsU, I wrote an article about the new site for the American Society News Editor publication, the American Editor (November-December 2005 edition).  The key point then (and now) is that journalists needed to be in charge of their own training.

The article explained our philosophy about e-learning and talked about some of early courses, such as “Cleaning Your Copy,” the module created by Vicki Krueger, Poynter director of interactive learning/NewsU.

Here’s what I wrote at the end of the article

Ultimately, NewsU will succeed because journalism will take control of their own training needs and recognize that small investments in time – and money – can make them better at their jobs.

If you want to read the full article, here’s the PDF.

 

Printed 2008 San Francisco State journalism graduation program and typed pages of the Distinguished Journalism Alumnus speech

Adding a Sixth W: My 2008 SF State Speech

On May 25, 2008, I went back to where I started. The Journalism Department at San Francisco State University held its annual Graduation Celebration at 9 a.m. in McKenna Theatre, and I was on the program as Distinguished Journalism Alumnus, introduced by Jon Funabiki. Venise Wagner, the department chair, opened the morning. Martin Reynolds was named Journalism Alumnus of Year, introduced by Austin Long-Scott. Khari Johnson was the Class Honors Student, introduced by Cristina Azocar, and Christine Joy Ferrer was the Class Speaker, introduced by John Burks. The ceremony closed with a World Press Pass send-off by the journalism faculty.

The two documents here are the printed program
ed u2014 with the full list of graduates u2014 and my speaking text, marked 22, 2008. Speaking to a room full of new journalism graduates in the spring of 2008 meant speaking into a very bad news cycle for the news business, and I decided not to pretend otherwise.

This is a wonderful time to be a journalist. This is also a lousy time to be at a traditional journalism-based media company.

The rest of the talk was an argument for flexibility, built out of my own ru00e9sumu00e9. I told them I left school with one goal u2014 to become a news editor at a newspaper u2014 and never got there.

That was my career dream. It was a good goal, but I never reached it. I went around it. I went through it. I went over it.

Instead I counted seven careers: copy editor at the San Francisco Examiner and the Chicago Tribune; graphics and picture editor at the Chicago Tribune and The New York Times; newsroom leader at the San Francisco Chronicle and the Arizona Republic; head of information technology at The Arizona Republic; online strategist at Central Newspapers; new media consultant; and educator, trainer and director of interactive learning at The Poynter Institute. My journalism education, I told them, had prepared me for maybe two of those jobs. My wife, Kate, has her own diagnosis for this pattern u2014 she calls me a u201cpioneer addict,u201d someone who is happy only when he creates something new, and she is right that pioneers are easy to spot by the lost look and the absence of a map.

The heart of the speech was a small piece of advice dressed up as journalism 101. Everyone in that theatre already knew the 5Ws. I suggested they add one more.

What you need to add is another W, a 6th W: the u201cWhat Ifu201d.

I framed 2008 as an inflection point u2014 the moment when an industry, a company or a person has to choose between protecting the old or jumping into a future where the rules are unclear. The railroads didnu2019t make that leap. Newspapers, I argued, could have decided in the 1980s that their business was helping people make sense of the world around them, u201cand not just crushing trees and smearing ink.u201d I warned the graduates they would witness the failure of some well-known newspaper and television companies during their careers, and also the birth of new forms of journalism, including nonprofit-supported experiments then under way in Minneapolis and Washington, D.C.

I also reminded them that they were the first truly digital generation u2014 born about when Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web, in fifth grade when the first Palm Pilot shipped, in ninth grade when Napster arrived and took the music industryu2019s business model with it, in high school for Skype, in college for YouTube. My generation still marvels at the Internet; theirs would treat it the way we treat electricity, without noticing the lights are on.

It is your responsibility to think about what the future might hold. It is your responsibility to shape the future. Do you think that you arenu2019t ready for that responsibility? Sorry. Too late. You already have the job.

Rereading this in 2026, the predictions hold up better than I would like. Well-known newspaper companies did fail. Nonprofit newsrooms did grow into a real part of the ecosystem. The one line that makes me smile is my hope for an innovator who would combine the Wii with journalism u2014 a very 2008 way of asking a question that AI and immersive storytelling are now answering in ways I couldnu2019t have named then. The advice underneath it, though, is the same advice I spent the next decade acting on at Poynter, building News University to give working journalists a way to keep learning after the diploma. Formal education can only take you to the starting line. Preparation, as I told the class of 2008, comes from within.

Opening page of William P. Cassidy's 2005 Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly study on the role conceptions of print and online newspaper journalists

2005 Study of Print & Online Newsroom Roles

This is William P. Cassidy’s article “Variations on a Theme: The Professional Role Conceptions of Print and Online Newspaper Journalists,” published in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 82, No. 2, Summer 2005, pages 264-280. Cassidy was an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater; the data came from his 2003 Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Oregon.

The question behind the study was one the industry was arguing about at the time without much evidence: were online journalists a different species from their print colleagues, or the same people working at a different speed? Cassidy went at it with a national Web-based survey, sending 3,330 invitations between July 15 and August 25, 2003, and getting 655 usable responses — 456 print newspaper journalists and 199 online newspaper journalists — from 271 newspapers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The response rate was 23.1%.

He measured the responses against the four role conceptions Weaver and Wilhoit had established: interpretive/investigative, disseminator, adversarial, and populist mobilizer. The headline finding, from the abstract:

A national survey (N=655) examining the professional role conceptions of print and online newspaper journalists revealed the print group perceived the Interpretive/Investigative role as significantly more important than the online group. No significant differences were found between the groups in their perceptions of the Adversarial and Populist Mobilizer roles. Results were mixed for the Disseminator role. The online group rated getting information to the public as quickly as possible as significantly more important than the print group.

In other words: print journalists scored higher on investigating government claims, analyzing complex problems, and discussing national policy (6.10 versus 5.74 on a seven-point scale). Online journalists scored higher on speed (6.46 versus 6.03). But on staying away from stories where the facts cannot be verified — the accusation most often aimed at online newsrooms in that era — there was no significant difference at all. Both groups took it seriously.

That last result matters, because the surrounding literature Cassidy reviews was full of the assumption that online publishing had corroded verification. He quotes Ann Brill’s characterization of the problem:

rush to production has allowed rumor to pass as reporting and electronic processing to pass for editing

Cassidy’s own reading of his data is gentler: “Perhaps online journalists are simply getting a bad rap from these journalists.” He suggests the online journalists in his sample, working for daily newspapers rather than Web-only operations, had absorbed the same newsroom norms as everyone else in the building.

I have a personal stake in this one. The credibility research Martha L. Stone, Diane Lynch and I did for the Online News Association — the “Digital Journalism Credibility Study,” published January 31, 2002 — is cited twice in the notes, in support of the point that the public rated online news about as credible as news from other sources. It is a small thing to find your own work in someone else’s footnotes, but it is a reminder that the arguments we were having inside newsrooms were also being tested, carefully, by people outside them.

The article also offers a useful bit of chronology for anyone dating the online news era, noting that in May 1992 the Chicago Tribune, in partnership with America Online, launched Chicago Online, and that by 1998 more than 1,600 newspapers had an online presence.

Reading this in 2026, the striking thing is that the study’s central dividing line no longer exists. There is no “print group” and “online group” to compare; there is a newsroom, and everything it publishes goes out digitally first. What has survived is the tension Cassidy measured — the pull between interpretation and speed. Twenty years on, with AI-generated summaries and an endless publishing clock, that tension hasn’t been resolved so much as industrialized.

1994-era Poynter memo proposing a seminar on the first 10 years of news on the Web

Proposal For the Web+10 Seminar at Poynter

This is an interoffice memo I wrote at the Poynter Institute in January 2004, proposing a seminar to mark — and, more usefully, to learn from — the first 10 years of news on the Web. It went to Karen Dunlap, Janet Weaver, Paul Pohlman, Bill Mitchell and Al Tompkins, with copies to a number of colleagues working on Poynter Online and News University.

The premise was simple:

Anniversaries are important. We mark milestones so we can celebrate the past and look towards the future.

I laid out a short list of the dates that felt like the founding moments of online news: Access Atlanta launching on Prodigy in March 1994, the Raleigh News and Observer’s NandoTimes in July 1994, Poynter going online with a BBS in December 1994, Mercury Center Web in January 1995 (“complete with advertising”), USA Today’s dial-up service in April 1995, and the announcement that same month of New Century Network by eight major newspaper publishing companies.

But nostalgia wasn’t the point. What we had come to accept as conventional wisdom by 2004 had been paid for the hard way:

What we take as “conventional wisdom” however, did not start out that way. Hard lessons were learned. These lessons provide the foundations for the development of a new form of journalism and a new type of information medium.

The proposed format borrowed from Poynter’s “Planning Your Election Coverage” seminar — a mix of industry leaders and working managers, plus some of the pioneers of the field as participants and speakers. The session ideas ranged from the evolution of journalism on the Web to what readers actually wanted from news sites, convergence, the new EyeTrack research, credibility and ethics, changing media habits, “Sight and sound: the emerging Web senses,” and the interactivity challenge I titled “You provide, but I drive.”

I also wanted the seminar to be more than a room in St. Petersburg. The idea was to extend the conversation before and after the in-person meeting using News University as a platform, carry the teaching into Poynter Online, and possibly publish a special Poynter Report as a handbook “to guide online journalism into the next 10 years.”

The postscript is my favorite part of the memo. Just after I finished writing, Robin Sloan posted an item to Convergence Chaser about New York Times Digital CEO Martin Nisenholtz speaking about… Pong. Nisenholtz argued that nytimes.com would evolve

from sorting, distributing and making accessible content created principally for other formats, to creating content that is native to the computing world from which we evolved.

My reaction, in the memo: we needed to bring him to Poynter to explore what “native content” meant for journalists and journalism.

Reading this now, the milestone list looks impossibly early and the questions look impossibly current. We’re well past Web+30, and we are still arguing about credibility, about who drives the experience, and about what content native to a new platform actually looks like — only now the platform is generative AI rather than the browser.

First page of the 2004 Poynter Institute strategy document listing the mission statement and four strategies

Big Pieces for Poynter Strategy, 2004

A two-page strategy document prepared for a Poynter Institute strategy session, dated January 15, 2004. It sets out the Institute’s mission and then four strategies, each with quarterly goals and named owners.

The mission statement opens the document:

Poynter is a school dedicated to teaching and inspiring journalists and media leaders. It promotes excellence and integrity in the practice of craft and in the practical leadership of successful businesses. It stands for a journalism that informs citizens and enlightens public discourse. It carries forward Nelson Poynter‘s belief in the value of independent journalism.

The four strategies: expanding the reach of teaching the craft of journalism; raising Poynter’s voice on values; serving owners and senior executives; and building the base at Poynter. Under the first, one of the numbered goals reads simply:

Continue developing courses in e-learning (Janet/Howard/Paul)

On the ethics side, the document describes Poynter’s long-standing role in the teaching of applied ethics and the creation of practical tools for journalists “who must often make decisions in a hurry,” and points to Bob Steele, crisis intervention, hotline troubleshooting, and expert commentary as the vehicles for a stronger voice on news standards and practices.

The third strategy marks the reach toward a new constituency:

Changes in the economics of the news business have led Poynter to reach out to the owners and senior executives of news organizations. Journalism will not improve and Poynter will not fulfill its mission if news organizations are not profitable and if journalists lack the resources they need to carry out their public service.

The final strategy is about the Institute itself: faculty and staff, campus, savings, and revenue, including hiring a development officer, partnerships, and re-evaluating tuition policies. It contains the line that best captures the place:

Poynter is a school that owns a newspaper, which keeps Poynter real, and brings to it resources in the form of stock dividends.

Sadly, things really didn’t work out for the newspaper or the Institute, which would go through a number of revenue models.