Seriously, it’s 2025 and we’re still talking digital transformation?

That was my initial (and belated) reaction about the recent re-organization at the Philippine Daily Inquirer. I peeked out of my cave last night and read online the intense commentary about how the venerated print side has now been folded under its digital side. I had a power nap this afternoon, which gave me extra energy to jump in. I’m not joining the chorus, just zooming out to document my thoughts. Here are my two cents:

What’s happening at the Inquirer isn’t new. Media groups — heck, entire industries! — have been trying to embrace this digital wild west for, what, about a decade now? So this Inquirer story is not just about workflows or restructuring. It’s about leadership and the messy business of letting go.

I get it. We’re still talking digital transformation in 2025 — because it’s still hard! No newsroom, even one as storied as the Inquirer, is immune from the weight of history or the demands of the present.

The current debate isn’t really about whether the Inquirer should shift to digital. That decision is no longer an “if,” but was a “when.” I’ve seen this pattern too often covering businesses and governments: the real divide lies in leadership styles, and in how people respond to disruption.

There are many textbook names to leadership styles when facing crisis. I have my own labels: I call the first as rooted in having a “breeding”: measured, genteel, stable, deeply respectful of the past. The other is “streetsmart”: sharp, fast, decisive, often forged by entrepreneurial survival. Both have merit, but they clash —especially when the stakes are high and the legacy is personal.

I’ve worked in newsrooms that had to faced these same tensions. At ABS-CBN — in that 2007 to 2011 era — the transition to digital was slooooow. The media behemoth (then) was built on TV and radio dominance: massive reach, massive revenues, and, yes, long-standing routines. Letting go meant challenging what made the company powerful.

At the helm then were what I’d call leaders “with breeding”. Because there were Lopez generations that came before them, the family members and bosses who led it then were measured (read: slow). To us who were pioneering the digital news systems then, it was awfully frustrating.

In the Inquirer debate now, I’d equate the ABS leaders then to what Insider.ph called the “newsroom dinosaurs”. Probably that’s how I also viewed my bosses 15-something years ago, but maybe I would have used a different language. I prefer to view these media leaders from a business leadership tone: Leaders with breeding, with “class”, with deep reverence to history.

Even before ABS lost its congressional franchise in 2020, the digital shift was already overdue. More than 15 years ago, CNN, BBC, the NYTimes, and other legacy media were already transitioning. At the time, inside ABS, few were ready, and fewer were willing to ram through change. But change, even when painful, couldn’t be put off forever.

At Summit Media, where I was editor at its Forbes Philippines franchise until 2016, the strategy was clearer: double down on revenue sources, cut costs smartly, and seriously prep for digital. It was a disciplined transition. Very Gokongwei. Summit eventually shut down all its print magazines in 2018. There were big exhales, tears, hard conversations, longing for old glory. Nostalgia was real, BUT so were the numbers.

At Rappler, there was no legacy baggage. The newsroom was born digital. The creativity and agility were refreshing! It meant lots of creative freedoms to create news and explainer content that listen to and resonate with the audience (hello, metrics!). The “streetsmart” leadership style truly shines. Leadership could pivot quickly. In its DNA is to be scrappy and fast. I wasn’t there anymore when Duterte came after Rappler, but that agility paid off. The team held the line, adapted and kept standing.

But let’s be real: even born-digital orgs bleed. The 24/7 pace was punishing (to old me, at least). It burned me out. (Hello, endometriosis.)

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: going all-digital doesn’t guarantee business success, nor sustainability.

Look at what happened to media startups that were once seen as the future: Vice Media filed for bankruptcy in 2023 after years of VC-fueled overreach. BuzzFeed shut down its news division despite the early wins of its how-to-go-viral formula. HuffPost was reshuffled repeatedly post-acquisition, never quite landing its next phase. Even Vox, considered one of the smartest digital players, had to downsize and recalibrate.

So, no, digital is not a cure-all. And legacy is not a curse.

The Inquirer story is about change, yes. But also about tone, respect, and timing. Veteran editors, writers, business people who shaped the Inquirer through its most critical decades feel slighted, not necessarily by the facts raised by digital advocates, but by the tone in which those facts were delivered. Respect, or the perceived lack of it, cuts deep.

And then those pushing for urgency (rightfully) see the risks of waiting too long. They want faster execution BEFORE the next media cliff arrives.

Both sides have a point. But do we have to choose one leadership style over the other? I’ve met leaders who can pivot quickly, get the accolades and headlines, but behind the scenes are teams hard at work to bridge or manage the differences.

After all, successful transformations are not just about technology or financial prudence. They are cultural. They honor what came before, and still push forward with clarity.

The Inquirer’s current shake-up is just the latest chapter in a much larger story playing out across global media.