The future of journalism

Backpack journalism is more than a half-baked fad. I’d stake my career on it. In “Here to Stay,” Jane Stevens writes of its flexibility and continuity. That those two modifiers describe backpack journalism is beyond debate, I think. The only valid argument Martha Stone offers in “Mush” is that a reporter trying to do it all may not excel in any one discipline. I would argue that complete coverage and broad appeal are more important than virtuosity. Writing or photographing well is a plus, but cogent storytelling is requisite.

The fatal flaw in “Mush” is that all the cringe-worthy numbers and statistics Stone lists are six years old, which in our ever-evolving field makes them irrelevant. Take as examples of change the fine work currently featured on Web sites such as washingtonpost.com and newyorktimes.com.

Perhaps most importantly, Stone ignores community news outlets. Most American journalists work at publications with circulations of less than 25,000, and are in an ideal position to be backpack journalists. They’re on a shoestring budget with minimal staff, and they’re reporting local events with familiar faces, neighbor-to-neighbor. Using video and other multimedia tools, they can provide a more tangible, albeit simple, reflection of daily life.

Consider it in practical terms. A reporter recording an interview can later edit clips onto a Web site. Or, a reporter can videotape an interview (being careful to let the source do 99 percent of the talking), which, when properly edited, makes a compelling multimedia addition. It doesn't have to be complicated.