Over the past 35 years, what do you believe has given Tap chi Kinh te Viet Nam / Vietnam Economic Times / VnEconomy its distinctive identity?
From the very beginning, long before anyone in the media industry was talking about data journalism, analytical journalism, or solutions journalism, we had already built our publication on those very foundations.
The founding team consisted of just three people: Editor-in-Chief Professor Dao Nguyen Cat, Dr. Chu Van Lam, who is now Chairman of the Editorial Board, and myself. Tap chi Kinh te Viet Nam, as it exists today, originated from “Thong tin Kinh te” (Economic Information Bulletin), and we were very clear from the outset that it had to be a publication grounded in economic data.
The publication was born out of the Vietnam Economic Association, with founders such as Professor Tran Phuong and Professor Cat, who were all respected economic researchers. The mission was simple yet ambitious: to provide reliable economic data for businesses and bring economic knowledge to readers. At that time, data was scarce and information difficult to obtain. Professor Cat would personally buy newspapers, cut out individual pieces of information, and build relationships with organizations that held economic data in order to gather information for publication.
What made us valuable, however, was not merely the data itself. Behind every figure and every piece of information lay economic knowledge, practical experience, and insights that were not stated explicitly but could be discerned by attentive readers. A business executive could find information useful for shaping corporate strategy. A policymaker could identify ideas relevant to public policy.
That has been our defining identity throughout our 35-year history: information must be accurate, data must be reliable, and analysis should be embedded within the data rather than imposed upon the reader.
I still remember Dr. Lam once jokingly saying: “My newspaper doesn’t teach anyone.” Of course, it was said humorously. What he meant was that the publication never tells people what to do, despite having been founded by economists and researchers.
After studying and training in France, I brought back a journalistic philosophy that I have shared with reporters throughout my career: when writing, do not lecture, do not judge, and do not rush to conclusions. Write in a way that takes readers as close as possible to the destination, then let go. They will find their own way to the conclusion. That, to me, is the mark of truly skillful journalism.
If the information and data are authentic and sufficiently rich, readers will never feel that they are being directed, yet they will arrive at their own understanding.
I pursued this approach because before joining Tap chi Kinh te Viet Nam / Vietnam Economic Times / VnEconomy I spent more than a decade working in foreign affairs journalism. That experience exposed me to international audiences, made me accustomed to working with data, and, most importantly, shaped a clear belief: the essence of journalism lies in information, not commentary.
At the time, many journalists still approached reporting as a form of literary writing rather than journalism in the modern sense. As an editor, I often had to personally review and revise articles. Any subjective phrases such as “I think,” “I believe,” or “in my opinion” were removed. Passages driven by emotion or personal judgment were crossed out. Let the facts and data speak for themselves, and let readers draw their own conclusions.
That is why our identity, our journalistic DNA, has always been rooted in rich information, verified data, and the objectivity of its journalists.
If I had to choose a single phrase that best captures that identity, it would still be Dr. Lam’s joke: “My newspaper doesn’t teach anyone.” We do not tell people what to think. We do not pass judgment.
Tap chi Kinh te Viet Nam / Vietnam Economic Times / VnEconomy’s guiding principle is “Authentic Perspectives - Positive Thinking - Practical Solutions”. Amid shrinking media revenues, social media competition, and the rise of click-driven content, how has the organization remained true to that mission?
The challenges are certainly real, but we have always believed in and remained committed to those principles. To explain why, I often recall an incident that resulted in our publication being fined; an experience I have never forgotten.
The publication was penalized for reporting information related to foreign exchange management. The information itself was not confidential; another financial magazine had published it about two weeks earlier. However, when we republished the story, the market reaction was immediate and severe. Many people rushed to withdraw their money, and the newsroom was forced to publish a correction in the following issue.
The incident taught us an important lesson: a publication can have a very real impact on economic activity and on businesses. Information that is completely accurate can still destroy a company or trigger highly negative economic consequences. Accuracy alone is not enough.
From that moment on, we have always asked ourselves before publishing anything: how will this information affect businesses and society? There may be media models built around attracting clicks or attacking companies, but that is not how we choose to operate.
For many years, we have adhered to a simple principle: information must be useful for businesses, useful for policymakers, and useful for readers. We do not pursue sensationalism, nor do we use information as a tool for pressure or crowd manipulation.
Whenever information is provided by a company, the first step is verification. The next is determining how it should be presented, how much information should be disclosed, and what context should accompany it. The ultimate goal is not to generate the greatest possible impact but to reflect reality as accurately as possible.
That, in my view, is what distinguishes economic journalism. A piece of information may be highly compelling, but before publishing it, journalists must ask themselves a simple question: what effect will this have on the people, businesses, and economic decisions on the other side of the page?
While many news organizations struggle with shrinking advertising income, your organization believes trust comes first and revenue follows. What underpins that approach?
I would say that our philosophy goes beyond the conventional concept of a “win-win” relationship. Our approach is “all win” - meaning that everyone benefits.
In the traditional sense, a win-win outcome involves only the two parties directly engaged in a transaction or relationship. But that is not enough. A truly sustainable model must create value for the entire ecosystem: businesses, customers, partners, regulators, and even those who are not directly involved, as well as society at large.
I believe this is also how an economic media organization should operate and grow. When a publication genuinely accompanies businesses - when companies trust that the information it provides can help them identify new opportunities, expand markets, and increase revenue, or when sensitive information is handled responsibly to avoid unnecessary negative consequences - that trust begins to take shape. And once trust is established, people choose to stay with you for the long term.
That is why the most important question for us has never been how many page views an article receives. What matters far more is who those readers are. Are they decision-makers? Do they have the ability to influence businesses, markets, or the broader economy?
If a media organization can solve the challenge of influence quality rather than simply chasing audience volume, it can create genuine value for the business community. Once that value is recognized, businesses will proactively seek partnerships and long-term collaboration.
This is also why many enterprises, government ministries, agencies, and local authorities choose to work with us when organizing forums, conferences, and policy dialogues. What they are looking for is not merely a media channel but a trusted partner with credibility, connectivity, and the ability to amplify positive impact.
At the same time, we remain firmly committed to our journalistic role. A publication can only become a useful partner for businesses if it maintains its objectivity, accuracy, and social responsibility. That is the most important boundary.
I have always believed that journalism should be a trusted companion to businesses. That partnership must be built on truth, a constructive spirit, and a commitment to creating positive value for society. Only when all stakeholders benefit can development truly be sustainable.
Let’s turn to an issue attracting enormous attention not only within journalism but across virtually every sector today: AI. In your view, how will AI affect journalism and the way reporters work?
First, it is important to acknowledge that AI is having a profound impact on journalism and the media industry. That should come as no surprise; it is no different from what is happening across other sectors and professions. However, I have always held a very clear view: AI is a journalist’s arm, not a journalist’s brain.
What gives a reporter value is not the ability to type quickly, translate efficiently, or process large amounts of data. AI is already performing those tasks faster and, in many cases, better than humans. The question, then, is why we should continue spending time on tasks that machines can perform more effectively.
What AI cannot replace is human thinking. Journalists must never allow AI to become their brain. AI is a tool. Understanding an event, analyzing its underlying causes, determining what is right or wrong, identifying where responsibility lies, and exploring possible solutions - those remain fundamentally human tasks.
I believe the role of journalists is changing dramatically in the AI era. Journalists are no longer simply gatherers and transmitters of information. In economic journalism especially, reporters increasingly need to think like researchers, specialists, or even social scientists.
When a company claims its product is the best, a journalist must ask: best in what way? Compared to whom? What evidence supports that claim?
When a policy is described as groundbreaking, a journalist must continue asking questions: What will its actual impact be? Who benefits? Who may be adversely affected?
When a company asserts that it is creating value for society, journalists must have the expertise to verify whether that value genuinely exists or whether it is simply a communications message. That is critical thinking, the fundamental distinction between human beings and AI.
Many people assume that AI will make journalism easier. I believe the opposite is true. The work may become less labor-intensive, but it will become significantly more demanding.
When AI can process data, synthesize information, and support content production in a matter of seconds, the value of journalists will no longer lie in possessing information. It will lie in their ability to understand data, interpret it, and generate new insights from it.
I believe the role of journalists is changing dramatically in the AI era. Journalists are no longer simply gatherers and transmitters of information. In economic journalism especially, reporters increasingly need to think like researchers, specialists, or even social scientists.
That requires journalists to study more, read more, and continuously expand their knowledge. The goal is not to feed data into AI, but to feed knowledge into their own minds. Ultimately, there is one principle that journalists should always remember: AI must serve people, not the other way around.
Technology may become increasingly intelligent, but the qualities that define journalism will continue to be human judgment, professional integrity, and critical thinking. Those remain the final frontier that AI cannot replace.
Based on that philosophy, how did your organization approach AI? Could you share the story behind its adoption of AI and the creation of the Askonomy ecosystem, which seeks to transform data, information, and knowledge into value for the business community?
The journey of adopting AI, and indeed the origins of the Askonomy ecosystem, grew out of what has always been our greatest concern. As I mentioned earlier, we have quietly defined itself from the very beginning as a publication built on economic data. But the question that has occupied my mind for many years has been how to make the value accumulated by our publications over decades serve the business community more effectively.
That question existed long before AI became the global topic it is today.
We possesses a vast repository of economic data, information, and knowledge accumulated over 35 years. Yet I constantly asked myself whether we were truly extracting the full value of those assets. We have millions of articles, millions of data points, thousands of policy dialogues, and decades of observations of Vietnam’s economy. But if all of that simply remains stored in archives, it is nothing more than dormant data.
My concern was how to transform that repository into living data, how to ensure that an entrepreneur, anywhere and at any time, could access the information, insights, or economic data they need in the fastest, most convenient, and most reliable way possible.
Looking back, that journey unfolded through several stages.
The first step was building the technology infrastructure. We explored numerous CMS solutions, from those offered by major technology corporations to specialized platforms designed for media organizations. Eventually, we found the right partner in Hemera, which helped us build a platform capable of managing and unlocking the value of our enormous data assets.
The next step was the transition to digital journalism, enabling information to reach readers in real time rather than according to the publishing cycle of a print newspaper.
Then AI arrived. What was particularly exciting was that it seemed to offer the solution to a challenge we had been pursuing for years: how to allow data to interact directly with users. That realization led to the creation of Askonomy.
Many people see Askonomy as an AI product. To me, it is first and foremost a knowledge platform built upon the data, content, and experience that we have accumulated over the past 35 years. AI is simply the technology that activates and unlocks that knowledge.
I still remember how quickly the decision to invest in the project was made. The moment the opportunity emerged, I immediately recognized it as the missing piece of a puzzle I had been contemplating for years. When you have wrestled with a problem long enough, you often recognize the solution the moment it appears. Askonomy was created to help people access knowledge more quickly, make better decisions, and extract greater value from everything we have built over decades.
Throughout that journey, the same philosophy has guided us: everyone should benefit.
Technology partners have the opportunity to apply and expand their capabilities. We create new value from its data and knowledge assets. Businesses gain access to a trusted tool for economic information and insights. And society benefits from an open, useful, and increasingly intelligent knowledge ecosystem. That is how we view AI - not as an end in itself but as a tool for transforming data, information, and knowledge into meaningful value for businesses and society.
It seems that behind every major turning point in the organization’s history lies a long period of reflection and preparation. If you had to identify the source of the publication’s success over the past 35 years, what would you call it?
If I had to summarize our 35-year journey in just a few words, I would say: innovation for development. Development is not a destination. It is a continuous process of innovation and creativity. The day you stop creating is the day you begin to fall behind.
I have always believed that success does not begin with opportunity. Success begins with a sense of purpose and persistent determination. It begins with being deeply concerned about a problem. It begins with pursuing questions that have yet to be answered. It begins with a desire to do something better for businesses, for society, and for the people who need the value you can create.
Many people describe opportunity as a matter of luck. I see it differently. Opportunity appears only to those who have been preparing for it for a very long time. When you think deeply enough about a challenge and remain committed to finding a solution, there comes a moment when the opportunity reveals itself, and you recognize it instantly.
Looking back, many of our most important decisions originated from exactly that kind of determination. Not because we were smarter than anyone else, but because we never stopped asking questions and never stopped searching for answers.
And after everything we have experienced, I have become even more convinced of one thing: success built solely on self-interest is rarely sustainable. If your only objective is profit, particularly at the expense of others, you will eventually reach a limit.
But when you create value for others - when businesses benefit, customers benefit, partners benefit, and society benefits - that becomes the foundation for lasting development.
I call it the philosophy of “all win”. It is also the philosophy that we have pursued throughout its 35-year journey.
At this moment, what message would you like to share with the next generation who will continue writing the publication’s story in the AI era?
If there is one message I would like to leave behind from the past 35 years and for the years ahead, it is this:
To our reporters, editors, and leadership team, always hold on to a question that matters deeply to you. The challenges that concern you most today may become the source of your greatest achievement tomorrow.
When I look back on the past 35 years, I do not think the most valuable thing is how far we have come. What matters most is that even today, we still have questions that need answers, challenges that demand solutions, and aspirations to create new value for the community.
Because as long as there is curiosity and determination, there will be innovation. And as long as there is innovation, there will be progress.
Google translate