The Generalist vs. The Specialist

When I was working at Samsung Electronics as a regional account marketer, there was a huge difference between sitting at my desk in the HQ office and traveling across Ukraine and Russia as a one-man salesperson to prominent on-site companies. I believe such experiences can relate to the argument presented in the two readings.

Working in HQ makes you a specialist; you are designated to engage in one job defiintion, which is being an expert of product sales in the regions you take charge of. Perhaps this can correspond to the conventional newsroom environment with beat reporters, different job descriptions (editors, photographers, graphic designers) and roles. what is good about this is as long as everyone performs their job to a certain extent, the depth and perfection of job handling is maximized.

On the other hand, business trips to your actual regional accounts make you the generalist. You have to be able to talk financials, advertisements, sales of other products, etc - and all you have is a single laptop to report back to HQ. It is virtually impossible to rely on "expertise" of departments at HQ with poor communication and obviously a very urgent deadline. You are on your own to give a comprehensive (but surely not as in-depth as you would at HQ) report including everything.

In terms of perfection, of course the specialist would be on top. However, in terms of getting the job done and getting prompt results, actually being on-site has many more advantages. Of course, a party of specialists from HQ can visit a certain region to get a somewhat HQ-level result, but that can never be as timely and as efficient as one person reporting on a one or two-man business trip.

Although the articles were written some six years ago, they seem to point out an important argument of backpack journalists - the generalist vs. the specialist. However, I don't know if "mediocre" is the main word to describe their performances. Yes, sometimes they can seem mediocre at times, but technology as well as journalist utilizing it are developing, which make them generalists with specialties. It seems neccesary to focus more on the timely reporting, integrated media approach (which appeal to people) and vividness that can only be delivered efficiently by backpack journalists. Just like one-man business trips that enables a giant leap for business in a certain region.

...it's here to stay

There is always controversy about something new.  Backpack Journalism is no different.  After reading both of the articles, I have stumbled between a little bit of frustration and concern about whether picking convergence as my sequence is a good thing, but I have emerged more confident than ever.  In "Backpack Journalism is a Mush of Mediocrity," Stone writes, "However, the do-it-all journalists should be the exception, not the rule."  I find it very close-minded to say that superior work should not be expected, or strived for in the newsroom.  Backpack journalism isn't necessarily do-it-all, all of the time.  It is an understanding and knowledge of all of the different mediums and a concentration in a specific area.  It is about teamwork and as Steven says in "Backpack Journalism is here to Stay," it is the way to achieve context and continuity, which are vital in delivering the news.  Currently, many newsrooms are making that switch and converging.  They are at a setback because their education was in a specific area and now they are scrambling to learn the basics.  In attending a journalism school, such as here at Mizzou, we are one step ahead.  We will be learning how to operate within the different medias, and when it comes time to tell a story, it will be a matter of deciding which way is the best to properly deliver it.

As for backpack journalists being a mush of mediocrity or a “jack of all trades, and the master of none,” I disagree.  To be able to tell a story in many forms, across multiple platforms only strengthens the story and make sit more interesting.  A person can be a master of one media (his or her emphasis), and be good at the rest which will strengthen the story overall.  Not to mention with a team of masters, with each a master of a different medium, and all of which have good to average knowledge about all of the different platforms will put together a much better story than a team whose members solely know how to story tell on one platform and are not familiar with the rest. 

I also like the line in “Backpack Journalism is Here to Stay” that reads, “Oh, and with a few more multimedia stories under his belt, Preston Mendenhall will begin to see his dirty camera lens.”  With practice and a continued training support system, backpack journalism can improve and thrive.  Convergence media is a case where more is better.  Of course, depending on the nature of the journalist, he or she will thrive and lean towards a certain media, but an overall education will improve and expand the content and make for a more informed audience.  Backpack journalism doesn't just seem like a good idea, it seems necessary for well-rounded storytelling.

no matter what medium, effective and engaging storytelling comes first.

It's funny, because while reading these articles I found it difficult to decide which was "right" and which was "wrong"- I think this was probably because neither was right or wrong. The exact definition of "backpack journalism" is constantly changing and developing, and in actuality, I feel like you can't really "correctly" define backpack journalism because the term encompasses such a wide variety of actions and careers and an individual's definition really depends on their personal experiences with and observations of the world of journalism. "Backpack journalism" changes so rapidly due to both constant development of new technologies and to user discoveries of new ways to use this technology. Because of this, I think that both authors make pretty valid points.

One of the lines that stood out most to me, though, referred to convergence/backpack journalists as "jacks of all trades, and masters of none (this phrase seems to have stuck out to many of us, as it's referenced in a lot of the blog entries below!)." And frankly, I feel like this isn't really a valid point, essentially because I believe that when it comes to journalism, the most important "trade" to learn is storytelling. People need news, care about news, and crave news because they want to be informed or are engaged by stories about the people and world around us, and a truly good storyteller will be able to inform and engage through any medium they learn how to use. Taking pictures, shooting video, editing clips, and posting to the internet are not our "trades" as journalists- they're our tools. With enough training, anyone can learn how to write well, use AP style, shoot with a camera or work with a Web page; the most challenging and exciting skill to master is learning to share news in a way that maintains attention, effectively informs viewers and makes them honestly care about and feel as if they can relate to each subject at hand.

Call Me Biased

Lauren Sharp

I have to start by pointing out that the time frame of these articles should be taken into consideration, because I'm pretty sure it's rather obvious to anyone in the news world right now that backpack and convergence journalism have taken off and are extremely useful and generally efficient, especially as the internet continues to grow. However, a big part of me still believes that if it is cost effective and possible, a team should be sent to cover stories. We are educating people now so that they can be an individual and do a great job getting the many facets of a story together for publishing, but I believe due to all the aspects that are covered and the fact that we are all only human, a team will create a better overall outcome, just because each person can totally commit to one or two tasks and make them the best they can be in a shorter amount of time than it would take one person to do all this. Backpack journalism definitely has its pros though, especially since journalists are being taught everything they need for this field while in school, instead of being educated specifically in one area and then learning the basics of the rest. At times it is more practical to send one person to cover a story, and if they can do a good job of it then I think it's a useful practice to continue.

No, Martha, not in '08

Brian Schraum

After I read the headline on Martha Stone's piece, I was getting ready to throw a shoe at my computer monitor. Then I read the rest of it.

I was expecting another old-time, old-media, "pry this newsprint from my cold dead hands" rant about the evils of multimedia journalism. Instead, I found her argument pretty interesting, however flawed.

Let's face it folks, the internets are here to stay -- people generally agreed on that way back in 2002. Multiplatform storytelling isn't going anywhere. In these two pieces you saw two very different approaches essentially supporting the same idea: that news outlets should embrace convergence and multimedia. On the one hand, elite backpackers who can do it all. On the other, teams of specialized reporters supported by dollars and innovation from management.

One key quote from Jane Stevens' piece: "Over the next 20 years, if economic conditions don't worsen ... the content of the newspaper and the television news shows are likely to be delivered principally over the Internet."

The catch: economic conditions have indeed worsened, not only nationwide but for the media business in particular. Layoffs and buyouts are an everyday event -- veteran reporters struggling to find jobs (and keep them). Newsroom budgets are perhaps tighter than ever before.

So yes, Martha, it would be fantastic if we had "top-down management's support and action, expanded research and development budgets." Maybe that was practical in 2002, but today I just don't see it. Where's the beef? How do we pay for it? No, do-it-all journalists probably don't produce the same quality that an entire team of specialists would. But we have to do the best we can with what we've got: fewer readers, fewer dollars, and fewer journalists for fewer teams. Backpack journalism is here to stay. Our own survival, like it or not, depends on it.

Stevens, Stone and Multimedia's Bones

Kevin Ornduff

On the topic of what 2002's journalists were calling "Backpack Journalism" I agree with opinions on both sides of the fence where Jane Stevens and Martha Stone contend.  

Stone believes that the substance that makes all makes and models of journalism roll will be lost in the "Mush of Mediocrity" that results from many individuals acting independently and, in her own opinion, recklessly.  Stone prefers top-down, classic style journalism with a liberal attitude - willing to try the new things, but not forgetting the strategies that worked in the past.  Specialization, in Stone's opinion, has much merit.

Stevens is all about rucksack reporting.  She references the true starting point of today's convergence journalism, those many multimedia expeditions that jettisoned off the tragedy of September 11th, 2001, multimedia experiments to help a frightened country in need of immediate information. Versatility and individualism are the most powerful tools of a Stevens-style journalist.

In my opinion the most important thing to take into account here is the timing of both articles, both released in 2002.  As anyone can see, multimedia has expanded to the point that conventional print methods are questioning their own ability to stay relevant in a global society obsessed with instant gratification.  The only question is what way to approach multimedia’s production.  I agree with the opinion that conventional specialized reporting should be located at the epicenter of a story with backpack journalists in outlying areas.  Small stories can be exclusively covered by the backpack.

The Catch-22 of Backpack Journalism

The American population is aging assimilating more visually stimulating media outlets. It’s only fair to infer that the future holds, to a greater degree than what is present, backpack journalism. Future news consumers expect to receive news complete with videos, photos, links, blogs, narratives, etc. And journalists have moved to accommodate the trends of the now. But Jane Stevens wrote, “I can do a little muckraking, if need be.” It all depends on editing. Anyone can take a straightforward video, and completely mislead the consumer by skewing the footage to tell a nonexistent story. Reality television does it all the time. In the quest to satiate a changing audience, journalists are caught between the obligation to the truth, and making each story interesting and unique. Thus, the challenge facing 21st-century journalists is not how traditional media will coalesce with modern forms of delivering the news, but rather how to maintain sound ethical practices while doing so.

Convergency for the Good or the Bad?

Both of these articles about backpack journalism (or BPJ as I like to call it) had great points that hit home with me. As a recently converted broadcast major to convergence, I often have mixed feelings about the role of BPJers and their impact on the established journalism community. Although the idea is nice, are we really just cost-effective-young-multitaskers that the journalism corportations are taking advantage of? I like to think that we are making the world a better place by giving the audience more of a say in their news and making it more intersting and inclusive, but at times I don't even know myself.

The question of a BPJ being a mush of mediocrity or a "Jack of all trades, and master none" is true but inaccurate in my opinion. The field of journalism isn't the only field that is cutting corners with technological-savvy young workers or using the Internet to their advantage. Journalists have been criticized for decades and I think this is another one of those times. If newspapers decided to stick strictly with print and not try to incoporate multimedia aspects, people would say they're behind the times. When they try to branch out, they are criticized for not focusing on content enough.

I can't say exactly where I stand in the whole muck of it because I haven't decided one way or another. I do know that I am an intelligent young woman, and if the Internet and podcasts is what they want, darn it I'll give it to them! Until I make up my mind, I guess I'll continue to read what the world has to say about these BPJers who are changing the journalism world, whether we like it or not.

Multimedia Changes Ability To Form Ideas - A. Tomeka Weatherspoon

There was one particular topic in the assigned articles I wanted discuss. Both articles raised valid points when assessing backpack journalists in the age of converging media. The article "The Backpack Journalist Is a 'Mush of Mediocrity'" argued that journalists with specialized areas of expertise are more likely to deliver more quality work. The general idea being that someone who knows a lot about one thing instead of a little about everything will have a deeper understanding of content and could likely deliver their product more quickly.

However, I agreed more with the article, "Backpack Journalism Is Here To Stay." It gave examples of where journalists can both range of skills and depth of understanding. Though according to the author, there are few who were able to do both when this article was written. 

One of my theories is that the advances in media has begun to effect our ability to form and interpret ideas. If the use of different media becomes more common, perhaps the ability to tell an in depth story will expand along with a range of skills. As more people become accustomed to the new age of multimedia, the number of people able to do this will grow.

Jacks of all Trades will Deliver Unique Flavors

Zach Wade

Backpack Journalism, as Jane Stevens describes it, will undoubtedly be reporter-driven and therefore subject to the style of the respective reporters. When the future journalist has his or her hand in the majority of news production we will see individual news personalities develop. Stevens is correct that journalists will require broader skill sets to wield future multimedia production. But what will be interesting to see is if the personal bias and perspectives of the self-sufficient journalist bleed through the news more heavily than layers of production and newsroom personalities allow for currently. Some may argue that the process and give-and-take with a team of journalists foster a more objective or democratic news product. The Backpack Journalist exercises sole discretion and may make reporting a practice in arbitration rather than a careful process of delivering information.

Backpack Journalism: a Distant Future

"There's a middle road (about backpack journalism). The specialist journalist isn't going away when the cameras have more knobs than on the dashboard of my car,"
Kerry Northrup’s above quote I feel best describes the near future of backpack journalists. Northrup’s point is that reporting is too complicated. Also most true journalists will be unable to possess all the skills required to be a backpack journalist. To be able to film, video and print edit, upload graphics, create a web page, and write an acceptable print story would take years of training.
Now as the University of Missouri continues to expand its convergence journalism program, we will see the number of backpack journalists grow rapidly. However, I do not believe that in our lifetime we will see news reporting dominated by backpack journalists. It is just far too difficult for a journalist to adapt and become excellent at one type of reporting after years of practicing another and I therefore, agree with Martha Stone’s argument that backpack journalists will only produce mediocrity.

A New Way of Storytelling Marissa Kuettel

I have to disagree with Martha Stone's opinion that backpack journalists will simply produce a "mush of mediocrity". I think that all depends on the journalist, because it's not impossible to learn how to "do it all". Stone seemed to approach the issue from a point that assumes the journalist would be doing everything on his or her own, while Jane Stevens mentioned that converged journalism would require more team work. I thought it was somewhat pessimistic to say that journalists are too independently-natured to work as a team. All of Stone's arguments against backpack journalism make sense, I just don't think they're significant enough to make it unsuccessful. It seems like a good idea for journalists to be able to do all forms of media, even if they still specialize in one form. That's why in the convergence sequence at Mizzou we pick a concentration within convergence. There's nothing wrong with knowing how to do a little of everything, and when it comes to making a "mush of mediocrity" it depends on the journalist. I also think having a team to help would avoid that problem too, and it would still be just as efficient if everyone on that team knew how to do all forms of media. 

Keeping up in the technological age

Kate Chizek

While I understand Martha Stone's point that "backpacking journalism" cuts jobs and lowers journalistic specialization, I think in today's "faster is better" world, backpacking journalism is necessary. Technology is catching up to society's need for news -- i.e. with the Flip Video, reporters can cover stories and back them up to email within minutes. News coverage changes from minute to minute and backpacking journalist can cover all the elements of a story. As journalists, it is our responsibility to become up to date with our skills, and diversity is vital. The job of a journalists is more advanced than it used to be, and the fact of the matter is, jobs are being cut. We have to accept that this is what corporate America is doing to journalism and if we want to keep up, we have to be more aware and hone our skills. Preston Mendenhall had to go into Afghanistan alone, but he could cover the story effectively at a lower price. We must "grow into our culture," and realize the cheaper and up to date solution is backpacking journalism (Stevens).

Importance of specialization

Jane Stevens says that, "In a few years, backpack journalists will not only be the rule, they'll rule." This is certainly something that I have heard over and over since arriving at the j-school two weeks ago. Even those who are not on the convergence track will be trained for a converged newsroom. They will have to know how to do it all. However, I too share Martha Stone's fears that the backpack journalist is the "Jack of all trades, and master of none." There is still a need in the newsroom for specialization, which Stevens leaves room for in her argument, but I believe that the importance of specialization will increase as the number of backpack journalists increases. The converged journalist must not lose any skill in his specialization just because he adds multimedia skills. It seems that now a journalist must be just as skillful as he was before in his specialization, but must have the added responsibility of learning these new skills as well.

Key items spill from unzipped backpacks

Those items, in no particular order, are social networking and the media’s business side. Martha Stone’s article on the perils of backpack journalism more closely aligns with my perspective of the truth, but it still misses two critical points, as does the first article. Neither mentions social networks, which can connect readers to the people who develop news content. And journalists can produce the finest coverage in the world, but if no one can see it or buy it, who cares? The media must fuse readers with content and figure out how to turn a better profit online.