Are you a workaholic?

The quality of work must matter too. Mere quantity doesn't mean someone is a hard worker; it might mean that person is unfocused or mildly competent. Achieving a balance though solid work and nuanced home life can be done in the confines of most weeks if that is a priority.

 

By "asking" employees to regularly put in 70-hour weeks, all in the pursuit of wa and the company's good name.

Your point is well-taken, but idealizing Japan's situation is not the way to go about it.

 

I know I'm going to get it for writing this, but we cover sports.

Sports.

Are we really working that hard? No. Working more? Sure, no matter if we're paid for our hours or not. But I don't think any of us work that hard. That's my perspective.

 

I think it would be more accurate if he said, "You can work hard at covering sports but the work itself is not difficult."

 

Not difficult as in = easy.

The working hard part comes from hustling and doing the legwork and going the extra mile, putting in the extra time, etc.

The actual work is easy; you sit at a computer pushing buttons doing something you are well-trained to do and have done many, many times. Of course you want to make things fresh and interesting and relevant as opposite to trite, cliched and boring but the challenging aspects of the job stem from personal pride or standards or your boss telling you, "Do it better."

Difficult work is something like being a brain surgeon or tank commander or spy.

 

Shit, the reporting is the easy, formulaic part.

For me, the writing is the painful part, especially if you care about it. But when you get it right, there's no better feeling.

 

I consider myself a workaholic. I work maybe 50-60 hours a week, use all weekend to work, and do any little bit just to get even the tiniest bit ahead of my competition. But I don't consider my job "work", it's fun for me. I'm just blessed that I'm talented at it enough to where I can enjoy it so much and improve every single day.

 

I spent my 20s putting down 50- and 60-hour weeks at small papers as prep writer/deskie, hoping for the big break and believing (like my Midwestern, Protestant ethic taught me) my hard work would be rewarded.

All it got me was to more small papers covering minor beats and straight on the road to burnout city by my mid-30s. Never again.

Now working on the desk. Any editor who wants me to work beyond the clock had better have a pretty compelling reason and some financial backing for me to do so. My work habits are now more efficient than they were and I have my reasons for wanting to clock out at 40.

If that makes me "not worth a damn," that's fine. Much to the delight of managing editors and publishers everywhere, someone else will be more than happy to work for free. Let 'em.

 

I agree. The legwork and research is hardest because there's so much out there and it takes time and effort to get it right. Writing comes easy to me, so I'm quicker to gather info, organize and write it in a coherent and introspective manner. But research and background work is where the story is made. Being creative and making it relevant as a story comes second nature.

 

Doesn't matter. It's all perspective. From buck's perspective, I don't work hard because I don't put in over 40 without overtime. From my perspective, he doesn't work hard because he writes about games. I love how most everyone tries to 1-up each other here constantly. It's the best part of the board.

 

When I was younger it was the opposite ... the blank page was easier to fill with new ideas and reporting was intimidating because you never knew when you had enough ... I wrote myself out of quite a few holes.

but now I know exactly where to go, how to get it quickly and how to pace myself... and when you've written a few thousand stories it becomes a neverending challenge not to write the same story twice ... that's why it's fun to report, that's how I keep the stories different.

 

Games? Like monopoly?