2 ways to do a “24 hour” story, both great but to be used wisely!!

Two big stories from recent weeks that we love to compare: the first, My Frantic Life As A Cab-Dodging, Tip-chasing Food App Deliveryman from the NYT, which takes the ol’ “undercover reporter” route to document 27 hours spent wrangling a uniquely 2019 job (and the ridiculous DoorDash tipping mode)l (which they changed in reaction to the story, FWIW). We love the use of the bodycam footage to make it feel like readers are along for the (literal) ride, and also the general use of the first-person account, which allows for the space to document all of the little details/indignities involved in the side of a job most of us don’t see. 

Compare it with the SF Chronicle’s One Day, One City, No Relief: 24 Hours Inside San Francisco’s Homelessness Crisis, which also takes a similar “24 hours” framework but is done through the collective POV of 36 reporters spread out over time across the city. The resulting package is extremely powerful and nuanced — clearly, there’s no one superior perspective to use when it comes to first person vs. collectively reported.

The key difference: knowing which stories fit each framework best. Imagine how disastrous the SF Chronicle’s story might turn out if it were a (especially a white, privileged) reporter going “undercover” as homeless for 24 hours*...or how scattered the deliveryperson story might be if you included too many narratives.

Obviously, there’s still potential for either of those hypothetical stories to be done well (especially at these outlets), but let this be a warning to any enterprising Hunter S. Thompson wannabe to always deeply consider: do **YOU** really need to the star of the story?? (tl;dr, probably not, but sometimes it does work!)

*Laugh, but we all personally know at least 5 j-school bros who confuse hardship tourism with journalism!!