THIS newspaper does not like to dwell on itself. We are proud of our heritage of editorial and commercial independence, serving no master save the liberal credo of open markets and individual freedom. But we publish no masthead listing our staff, no bylines for our journalists—and in our weekly edition no letter from the editor.

This week’s issue is an exception, because it is an exceptional moment in The Economist’s history. On August 12th we announced the most important change to our shareholding structure in almost 90 years. Pearson, the owner of the Financial Times, which has had a non-controlling 50% stake in us since 1928, is selling. Three-fifths of those shares will go to an existing shareholder—Exor, the holding company of the Agnelli family. The rest will be bought back by our parent company, The Economist Group.

A change in ownership is an important event for any newspaper, even The Economist, whose editorial independence is absolute and is fiercely guarded by four independent trustees. We are confident that this transaction, which is subject to the approval of our shareholders and is only the second significant change of ownership in our 172-year history, will serve this newspaper and its readers well. A responsible and engaged minority shareholder will increase its stake; The Economist Group has used its strong balance-sheet to reinforce the company’s commercial independence. New safeguards are being drawn up to place extra limits on the influence of any individual shareholder and to allow us to raise more equity capital should we wish to do so. At a time when truly independent journalism is all too rare and often under threat, we are strengthening ours—and, in doing so, are improving our ability to serve our readers in the future.

The background against which this change of ownership takes place is the digital transformation of the newspaper industry. Mobile technology and the rise of social media offer unprecedented opportunities to reach new audiences in new ways. But they are disrupting business models and spawning new digital competitors.

We are well placed to prosper. More people are educated and curious about the world. Millions share the liberal values we champion, seek the bold ideas and rigorous analysis we strive for—and read English with ease. We have a circulation of 1.6m, and 75% of new and renewing subscribers pay for digital access. We have almost 10m Twitter followers and 5.6m Facebook fans. In the past year we have launched Espresso, which provides a daily shot of Economist analysis; Global Business Review, an app that offers a selection of our articles in English and Chinese; and Economist Films, which recasts our journalism in the form of short video documentaries.

The severe contest in the 21st century

It is a strong start, but we have much more to do. Success in the coming decades demands not just editorial excellence, but a commitment to invest and innovate. Pearson, our stalwart partner for decades, has chosen to move away from media and towards the education industry. Exor, which will become our biggest shareholder, wholeheartedly supports the project of modernisation. Meanwhile our share buy-back cements our commercial independence and will be paid for by the sale of an asset—our building in St James’s Street in central London—that is a treasured landmark, but hardly the ideal premises for a growing 21st-century media business.

All this puts The Economist in a position to flourish. Our trustees, whose assent is required for the sale of part of the FT’s shareholding, have approved the transaction unanimously, subject to our shareholders agreeing to the new safeguards that further strengthen our independence. All four of our living former editors have welcomed the change: it provides a platform for future generations to continue their work as a liberal voice in a world that needs to hear liberal arguments. Since 1843 this newspaper has engaged in what James Wilson, our founding editor, called “a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress”. We look forward to the next instalment of that contest.