Speaking with decades of experience as both editor and executive, Mediahuis Ireland CEO Peter Vandermeersch urged his peers to face uncomfortable truths and embrace radical change during an on-stage interview at the INMA European News Media Conference in Dublin.

His candid, provocative message was clear: The news industry must adapt faster than ever before, and more fundamentally, if it is to survive.

Vandermeersch, a long-time Belgian editor who has served as Mediahuis Ireland CEO the past three years, recently announced he was stepping down from that role to become a Mediahuis Fellow “Journalism and Society.”

Here are the key takeaways from his wide-ranging conversation with INMA Dublin moderators Nick Petrie and Maria Sakki:

The digital transition was too slow, too cautious

Vandermeersch began by recalling The New York Times’ landmark Innovation Report in 2014. That report forced one of the world’s strongest news brands to admit, 15 years into the digital revolution, it had failed to adapt quickly enough. For Vandermeersch, this was symptomatic of the entire news industry.

“We were too slow,” he said bluntly.

The shift from print to digital and then mobile was more about platform than journalism itself — reproducing print journalism on a screen. The coming transformation, driven by AI, will be far deeper, raising existential questions about what kind of journalism humans should create, and what machines should take over.

Unlike the digital transition, newsrooms cannot afford a leisurely 15-year adjustment period. “We have a couple of years, or we will be dead,” Vandermeersch warned.

AI as a threat and an opportunity

Vandermeersch illustrated the disruptive power of AI with a striking example. When Robert Redford’s death was reported, he asked several large language models to generate biographies. Out of dozens of published obituaries, only one surpassed the AI-generated version.

The lesson? Much of the routine journalism that once defined the profession can now be done competently by machines. The challenge for editors is to identify which tasks can be automated, freeing up human journalists to focus on what truly matters: investigation, commentary, deep reporting, and unique storytelling.

This isn’t about cost cutting, Vandermeersch insisted, but about redeploying scarce journalistic resources to where they add real value.

Breaking down the silos

The conversation moved to the persistent cultural silos inside media companies — editorial, advertising, marketing, technology — often operating in isolation, sometimes even in hostility.

Vandermeersch argued that trust in journalism must remain sacrosanct, but collaboration across departments is essential if legacy brands are to survive: “The editor is the heart of the company, but the rest must turn around that heart, not live in another galaxy.”

As long as marketing teams are literally barred from entering editorial floors, as Vandermeersch witnessed in France, companies will remain trapped in the past. Speed of change demands closer cooperation, not entrenched walls.

Data-informed, not data-driven

Having lived through the shift from “my mother as my only data source” to real-time dashboards, Vandermeersch cautioned against overreliance on metrics.

Pageviews, he argued, led digital publishers down a dead-end path towards clickbait and sensationalism. Instead, Mediahuis now focuses on “attention time” — how long people genuinely engage with articles, podcasts, and videos.

Data is valuable when it informs editorial judgement, but disastrous when it replaces it. Some of the most vital stories, such as climate change, may never top traffic charts, yet they must be told.

Be unique or be forgotten

Asked what advice he would give young journalists, Vandermeersch was emphatic: Uniqueness is everything.

In a world where every outlet runs the same celebrity obituary or football match report, generic journalism adds no value. Instead, newsrooms should concentrate on distinctive coverage — whether hyperlocal reporting, investigative projects, or world-class sports analysis.

For Vandermeersch, the middle ground will disappear. “Be excellent in your niche,” he advised. In Ireland, that means being the best Irish or Northern Irish brand, indispensable to readers in Kerry, Wexford, or Sligo.

Public service journalism and funding the future

On the enduring challenge of funding journalism, Vandermeersch acknowledged advertising alone is no longer sufficient. The shift to reader revenue — subscriptions and direct support — must continue.

But this value exchange only works if journalism itself improves. “We have to do less, but better,” he said. Too many resources are still spent on commodity content that could be automated or syndicated.

Public service journalism — investigative reporting, democratic accountability, community coverage — will only be sustainable if it is demonstrably high quality and unique.

Print’s inevitable decline

Vandermeersch did not shy away from the uncomfortable reality: Daily print distribution is unlikely to survive the next five to 10 years. In the United Kingdom, circulation declines of 12%–18% per year suggest a terminal trajectory.

Yet he was clear that this is not the end of journalism, only of a delivery mechanism: “I never became a journalist to make print papers. I became a journalist to do journalism.”

The financial challenge, however, is severe. Print copies still command several euros each, while digital subscriptions are often priced too low. Closing that revenue gap will require both price adjustments and a sharper focus on unique value.

Platforms, brands, and experimentation

Should news brands embrace platforms like YouTube and TikTok, or retreat to the safety of their own Web sites? Vandermeersch argued for balance. Legacy publishers must drive audiences to their own platforms to retain control but cannot ignore the spaces where younger readers consume content.

The only solution, he said, is relentless experimentation. The news industry is too conservative, moving too slowly on everything from broadsheet-to-tabloid transitions to digital formats. “Experiment, experiment, experiment,” he repeated — citing both successes and spectacular failures as essential learning experiences.

Personal brands and human connection

In an age of AI-generated content, Vandermeersch predicted that both institutional and personal journalistic brands will only grow in importance.

Audiences will crave authenticity and direct connection with trusted reporters — whether through live events, video appearances, or bylines that carry real reputational weight. Strong journalists and strong news organisations will reinforce each other, just as Bob Woodward and the Washington Post did in an earlier era.

Fighting the “theft of the century”

One of Vandermeersch’s most forceful interventions came on the question of AI companies training on publishers’ content without compensation. He echoed colleagues who call this “the theft of the century.”

Newsrooms invest heavily in producing unique reporting, only for it to be scraped and monetised by technology giants. Vandermeersch called for urgent collective action — whether through negotiations, political lobbying or litigation — to secure a fair value exchange.

Learn by doing

Asked about the best advice he had ever received, Vandermeersch’s answer summed up his philosophy: Experiment relentlessly.

Not every project will succeed — he recalled launching a newspaper that folded within six weeks — but even failures strengthen future ventures. The news industry’s survival depends on courage to test, adapt and learn in public.

Conclusion: Journalism is at a crossroads

Peter Vandermeersch’s on-stage interview in at the INMA European News Media Conference in Dublin was both sobering and energising. He acknowledged the threats — declining print, AI disruption, fragile business models — but also insisted on the enduring importance of journalism for democracy.

His prescription for survival is simple but demanding: Adapt faster, focus on uniqueness, use AI wisely, break down silos, and above all, keep experimenting.

For a sector often accused of clinging to the past, Vandermeersch’s message is a timely reminder that the future of journalism will be written not by technology alone, but by the willingness of journalists and publishers to reinvent themselves before it’s too late.

Editor’s note: This article summarises, with the assistance of ChatGPT, original content created by INMA. All content has been reviewed and edited by INMA editors.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .