It's here to stay, but that's not the real question.

Eric Thibault

Honestly, I thought the two articles were arguing different points.

"Backpack Journalism is here to Stay" seemed to address the longevity of convergence journalism. At this point, I'd have to say that appears to be a given. With more and more universities and professional news sources using "backpack journalism," a complete trend reversal isn't in the cards. Certainly, this new field has its advantages - I wouldn't be taking this class if I though otherwise. Reporters who can work across medias give themselves a chance to adapt to any type of story, or to any type of presentation of a story. Ideally, they fit the jack-of-all-trades mode, and can really be effective with any type of media.

"Backpack Journalism is a Mush of Mediocrity" addresses the quality of convergence journalism - not whether or not it will have any staying power. The article brings up some valid points...namely that while it's great to use all types of media, it's not worth much if the production value is low.

The problem I have with the second article is that it fixes its viewpoint on the wrong topic. It's not convergence journalism that's responsible for spread-out, average-quality work. It's the journalist.

When TV first became popular as a news source, low-quality TV reporting didn't occur because TV was a poor media. There were simply not enough journalists who knew how to use it effectively. The same can be said for convergence journalism. The responsibility falls on individual journalists to raise the quality of their work, and to make sure, in the words of Martha Stone, that they don't become "A Jack of all trades, and master of none."