As newspapers look for answers about what their futures will be, it is important to look back on what they have told the public, and to “know the difference between what you had to say for public consumption and the truth,” Ken Doctor, formerly vice president of content services at Knight Ridder Digital, stated in his blog Friday.

Newspapers have spent long hours on charts that show skyrocketing digital revenue, which makes up a tiny fraction of overall revenue, while downplaying print revenue declines as being temporary, he wrote.

“Instead of acting on that truth, and making major moves to restructure the business while you've still got a reasonable cash flow and more ability to get from here to there, you believe too much of your own, uh, wished reality and wait too long.” Now, however, newspapers are finally “catching up with reality, and that's good,” he stated.

From 1995 until today, there have been three phases the newspaper industry has gone through when speaking about the business to the public, and “each public phase lagged internal reality,” he stated.

From 1995 until 2004, newspapers basically believed that the “Internet won't hurt our business, and we're making prudent investments in the Internet.” From 2005 to 2007, newspapers said that the “Internet is changing our business, but we believe our new Internet revenues will make up for print losses.” Finally, from mid-2007 until now, newspapers have basically said they can't see the future, Doctor wrote.

What's missing from public conversations are three key questions, Doctor writes:

What does a new “local media” company look like? How big is this company in revenue? What kind of local market opportunity does the rapid shrinking of the DFKAM (Dailies Formerly Known As Monopolies) leave for new entrants?

To read the complete column, visit Doctor's blog.