To the Houses of Parliament, for a debate entitled “the only future for print media is online” organised by The Debating Group, and sponsored by the International Advertising Association.

I have a feeling of déjà vu at such events, as I seem to have been pitching up at them for well over a decade now. In fact, what’s this I spy in the archive folder? It’s my report from April 1995 on The Guardian’s forum: “Tomorrow’s Word: The Future of Print in a Digital Age”. Looking back, everything that was said then still applies today, and we heard some familiar and well-rehearsed arguments on Monday evening in Westminster.

The only difference for me this time around is that I was sorely tempted to vote in favour of the motion. What stopped me was the rather too definitive wording viz “the ONLY future for print media is online”. The two proposers – Guy Phillipson, CEO of the Internet Advertising Bureau, and Richard Edgar, head of video at FT.com – would have preferred the audience to vote based on their interpretation: “the only FUTURE for print media is online”, which did not preclude the continuing use of printed matter. Both spoke compellingly, and both emphasised that they were not saying that printed newspapers and magazines would die out altogether. This could have rendered any debate obsolete as that was what the opposers, Professor Steven Barnett of the University of Westminster, and Tom Lynch of the Newspaper Marketing Agency, were saying too.

Despite this, a lively evening with many interesting contributions ensued. And gosh, the online lobby are more aggressive than they used to be, as evidenced by this wince-making pronouncement from the FT’s Edgar: “Print is a burden, it’s expensive… when you come to think of it, print sucks”. Ouch. In fact as it turned out much of the discussion focused on the widespread pain currently being experienced by newspaper publishers. “Since 1995 national press circulations have declined by 21%,” noted Phillipson, and I felt a pang of guilt. In 1995 I used to buy a newspaper every day, now I buy one or two a week (or more accurately, one or two at the weekend). I get my everyday news from an eclectic mix of online sources, and there are thousands and thousands (millions?) of people who do likewise. So for newspapers in particular, the challenges are immense. For magazines that are more of a leisure read, the convenience and appeal of a printed copy has more enduring appeal. And in the case of the glossies, I can smell the latest scents and enjoy a sample of a wrinkle-busting cream too – not currently possible via my laptop or mobile device.

It’s also worth noting that debates such as this are typically peopled with sophisticated media types who spend most of their day at some sort of computer and no doubt have a company Blackberry, and probably the latest iPhone to boot. But there are lots and lots of people who don’t, or whose access to e-readers of whatever ilk is far more restricted. This is a factor that often seems to be overlooked.

Much comment was made about the fact that many leading online media sites would not exist, or be as successful as they are, were it not for the power gained in leveraging their printed brand. True up to a point. But the most startling counterpoint to this is of course craigslist, which came out of leftfield and ate up the classified advertising market that had belonged to newspaper publishers. I would definitely argue that the only future for the publishers of print media will be about being far more alert to such opportunities in the future, because if they aren’t, someone else sure will be.

I took this photograph when heading homewards amid teeming rain and teeming tourists outside Westminster underground station. I can’t decide whether its title should be “Welcome to Britain” or “Big Bin”.