“APME” Items

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

History of Newspaper Design and Year 2000 Visions

As part of the 1989 Associated Press Managing Editors convention Des Moines, I developed a script for a slideshow about the history of newspaper design and the vision developed from the American Press Institute’s seminar on the future of newspaper design.  That seminar, “Newspaper Design 2000 and Beyond,” was help in 1988.

The goal of the APME slide show was “look back so that we might look forward.”  [The  slide show was videotaped.]  Douglas Ramsey, who was a vice president at the Foundation for American Communications, did the narration. The AP put the show together.  Nancy Tobin, who was at The Asbury Park Press, helped with the creation of the show.

I found a VCR tape of the show, which is visually terrible.  However, I’ve posted it.  One of my goals is to take the narration, which was quite nice, and recreate the show in digital format.  Stay tuned. [Update in 2021: Still the plan. Life happens.]

YouTube player

Year 2000 Viewed by 1988 Committee

Robert [Bob] Cochnar, whom I worked with at the San Francisco Chronicle, invited me to join his Associated Press Managing Editors committee about the future of newspapers.  Called the Year 2000 Committee, one of the goals of the group was to create a report for the 1989 APME convention in Des Moines.  Here’s some of what Bob wrote in a note to committee members:

To borrow an idea from Phil Meyer, who pioneered the notion that research could also be a reporter’s and editor’s tool, I’d like to divide our work into several broad segments.

I.    Things We Know For Sure About Newspapers in the Year 2000 and Beyond.
II.   Things We Think We Know About Newspapers in the Year 2000 and Beyond.
III.  Things We Need to Know About Newspapers in the Year 2000 and Beyond.
IV.   A Summing Up: What We’ve Got to Do.

Somewhere, in some file is the report.  Meanwhile, in this PDF, is some of the correspondence from committee members.

[Bob didn't put a date on his letter, so I'm guessing it was in fall of 1988.]

 

Editors Told Big Changes Needed. Did They Listen?

Even though it was 2007, I was still making speeches to editors [and publishers] about the need to embrace change and transform the newspaper business.  One such plea for change was made at a Texas Associated Press Managing Editors convention in San Antonio. A fellow trouble-maker at the event was Michael P. Smith, executive director of the Media Management Center at Northwestern.

I said that not even popular online sites can rest easy and the challenge is young people who aren’t newspaper readers.  And I talked about “control”  of content and media.

From a story published in the San Antonio Express-News:

And editors can’t forget they’re dealing with an audience that’s “digitally equipped,” as more people own devices that give them control of a medium such as digital video recorders like TiVo.

These digital devices give control.

“No one wants to give up something that gives them control, Finberg said.  Young people, especially, “want to take somebody else’s content and add to it.”