Navigating disruption: Stig Ørskov on JP/Politiken and the future of media

For more than a decade, Stig Ørskovhas been at the centre of Denmark's media transformation, leading JP/Politiken Media Group through print decline, digital transformation, and evolving audience expectations, while holding firm on editorial independence. As he prepares to step into his new role as CEO of WAN-IFRA in 2026, he took the stage at WAN-IFRA's recent Newsroom Summit, which took place at JP/Politiken in Copenhagen, to open up about his choices, challenges and convictions that have shaped his leadership.

JP/Politiken is best known for Ekstra Bladet, Politiken, and Jyllands-Posten, but today operates far beyond its flagship titles. Its activities span a rapidly growing group of business niche sites, book publishing, e-commerce, and a distribution arm that will take the position as Denmark's leading postal service company in 2026. It also runs operations in Norway, Sweden, UK and Germany. All together, JP/Politiken expects to generate more than 700 million euros in revenues in 2026.

In this fireside chat, moderated by Prof. Dr. Alexandra Borchardt, Ørskov reflects on his journey from business journalist to CEO, sharing insights on leadership, sustainability, AI, and the importance of staying close to the newsroom.

Alexandra Borchardt: You started as a business journalist and later moved from editor-in-chief of Politiken to CEO, some 12 years ago. What did you enjoy more: being a journalist or a CEO?

Stig Ørskov: Definitely being a journalist. That was a really fun, and funny, period of my life, and I have missed it almost every day since moving to management.

Borchardt: When we met at the Reuters Institute in 2017, you shared an anecdote that stayed with me. You said you didn't believe in the e-paper at all, yet when someone suggested doubling the price, sales took off. It struck me as a bold decision. Is that accurate?

Ørskov: It's true, I didn't believe in e-papers at all. I thought they were a digital relic. But Politiken's editor-in-chief at the time insisted on pricing it properly, and it worked.

Back in 2017, we charged 40 euros a month for digital access plus the e-paper, and the uptake to that grew. That experience taught me something important: sometimes I really shouldn't listen to myself while making decisions.

Borchardt: How has that shaped your leadership? You've written about needing fewer meetings with EVPs and more conversations with people who hold real insights. Is that something you practised?

Ørskov: Not enough. I should have spent far more time in the newsroom, staying close to those who work directly with the users and understanding how things are done and what could be improved.

There are reasons, though. As CEO, I am not allowed to interfere with journalism, especially in a group with multiple titles, and a very strict separation between church and state. Because of that, I have to admit, with every year in the role, I felt slightly more detached from daily operations. I would urge any CEO in our industry to stay closer to the newsroom and the organisation - if possible.

Borchardt: We discussed the separation of church and state this morning. Some media companies have resolved this by having the CEO also serve as editor-in-chief. Do you think that is the future?

Ørskov: Both models can work. It depends on the kind of company you're running, because today we're seeing two types of successful media companies.

One is highly niche and segmented, serving a clearly defined audience with a lean organisation that produces exactly what that segment wants - in the formats it prefers. In those cases, you need a much closer integration of the commercial and editorial sides.

The other model is more industrial where a news media group with several titles serves a broader market and uses the scale of the entire organisation to drive value. In that model, decisions need to be taken at a higher level without the possibility of combining the two roles. As we have seen with Schibsted, Bonnier and Amedia in the Nordics, that model can be very successful as well.

I know I would have been a better CEO had I been closer to the daily work, but the group also benefits from making use of our scale, and making that work matters, too.

Borchardt: Beyond the editorial-commercial divide, what other struggles have you been navigating over these 12 years?

Ørskov: On the commercial side, the biggest challenge has been balancing decentralisation and scalability. We were very decentralised for years. It gave us agility and helped us serve specific segments, but we weren't as strong on benefiting from our scale as some of our competitors. Only recently have we consolidated our tech and financial backends. I struggled with that shift because understanding audiences and shaping products for them is crucial. I very much believe in the value of proximity to your audience.

Borchardt: I always had you down as a "make people pay for quality journalism because that confirms you have quality journalism" kind of guy. But it probably depends on which space in the media environment.

Ørskov: Exactly. That is what I firmly believe. And it very much reflects the learnings from the moments in life when I tried to build something that didn't succeed. Moments, when we actually ran out of money. After you go through that three times, and I have been involved in three journalism startups that ran out of money or came close - you realise something fundamental: the freedom to do independent journalism, to experiment, to try new things, rests on having strong financials by being able to attract users who are willing to pay for journalism.

For me, financial sustainability, and not being dependent on anyone other than the audience, is what defines true journalistic independence.

That is also why I consider Bonnier buying Zetland one of the worst moments in my tenure at JP/Politiken …

Zetland has been a very successful Danish startup doing exactly that - making amazing journalism that attracts users who are willing to pay. When Zetland went to market, there were several interested parties. Bonnier eventually bought them, but there were others who were, let's say, disappointed …

Borchardt: So your background as a business journalist certainly helped.

Ørskov: To some extent. The last start-up that failed, I was the business editor, so some people in Denmark still say I should have seen it coming. Back in 2002, I was part of a startup that collapsed after 42 days. That experience stays with you - what it means not to be financially viable.

Borchardt: On the positive side, what has surprised you most in your time as CEO?

Ørskov: That after more than 30 years in the industry, I still find it incredibly exciting. We constantly face hard questions, but we also constantly find new answers. This industry always worries about the future, but it also produces new solutions with impressive resilience. Even with the pressures coming from AI, I'm convinced the people in this room will find the next set of solutions. That ability to adapt has surprised and motivated me.

Borchardt: Where do you see the future of journalism in an AI-mediated environment? You run major initiatives in this area.

Ørskov:We've been lucky to have people insisting on working with AI long before I understood its importance. Five years ago, our head of AI, Kasper Lindskow, asked for investment, and when I questioned the business case, he found external partnerships to fund it. That gave us a head start. And I will always be grateful to Kasper for that.

Looking ahead, agents will compete with us for the direct relationship with the users. I've always believed in producing highly relevant content for specific audiences, and segmentation will go even further. But I'm also seeing the strength of scale in subscription markets. The Bonnier News Local case with +Alt in Sweden and a similar product from Amedia in Norway shows the potential of something non-niche, almost platform-like, combining news with other content such as live-sports. It's something we need to explore, supported by AI-driven personalisation and, in some cases, AI-produced content.

We're also seeing examples like Better Collective in Denmark, which produces large volumes of betting-related content using AI. It resembles journalism in certain ways and raises many questions. But it shows where the market is going.

Borchardt: Twelve years as CEO must take a personal toll. Were there sleepless nights?

Ørskov: Yes. It affects you and your family, and there are sleepless nights. But it is also a privilege to be part of meaningful discussions and work with so many talented people. Those experiences outweigh the difficult moments. After 12 years, of course, there is a long list of things I would have done differently.

Borchardt: What would you do differently if you had to start over?

Ørskov: One thing I regret is the defensive mindset that sometimes shapes our industry. We often act protective and assume society understands the value of journalism. That often makes us resistant to change. The biggest example is print. We all knew it was in structural decline, but we talked about it as something we could avoid. I wish I had been clearer in saying we couldn't.

For the future, we need to shift resources faster from declining areas to growth areas and invest more decisively in new ventures. We did some of that in JP/Politiken because we had the financial strength, but we should have done more and done it earlier. I spent too long trying to defend something that couldn't be defended.

Borchardt: Is it harder to make these decisions as a journalist?

Ørskov: Perhaps. Journalists feel a strong sense of purpose, and when that purpose is challenged, we become defensive. That can be a difficult starting point for transformation in a constantly changing landscape. But the upside is that this industry is incredibly collaborative and creative. We inspire each other and share ideas more than most sectors. That spirit is one of our biggest strengths. And a spirit that, more than anything, defines WAN-IFRA.

Neha Gupta

Multimedia Journalist

[email protected]