For better or worse, they're here to stay....

As a newcomer to this scary, fantastic beast that is journalism, I am both bewildered and inspired by the debate about the quality of work done by "backpack journalists." And honestly, I find myself nodding in agreement to both articles as I read them. When it comes down to it, I simply don't know enough to agree entirely with one side of the coin. I do know, as a basic consumer of media, that things are changing, of course, and will continue to do so as technololgy and demand drive multimedia--and therefore we as journalists need to embrace this change. The backpack journalist is an inevitable progression, so I think newsrooms should accept the fact and begin the necessary steps to support them and ensure that mediocrity is not an issue, at least in the longterm. To resist it is only to pospone the better, more complex, journalism that multimedia has to offer.

I agree that in theory, quality can be compromised when a journalist can do everything, yet can master nothing. Still, the seond piece said that 51 percent of convergence journalists are doing a good job. Futher, Jane Stevens, author of the first piece, clarifys that she and most of her colleagues do actually specialize in one area of the field.

Both articles, in the end, advocate extensive training for backpack jounalists, thus eliminating any chance of compromising the quality of the work. Even though she is skeptical, at the end of her piece, I feel like Martha is in agreement that maybe backpack journalists can produce quality work, as long as news organizations are willing to put in the time and the effort to continuously train them.