A plea for “sane work hours” is a bit hypocritical coming from me, since I work full-time and then run Eat Sleep Publish completely outside of that. I understand how some people have a drive to be doing things almost all the time, and I think that’s a good quality for someone who is covering the news.

That said, I also understand the value of disconnecting. I try to do it once a year, where I take a week (usually in Colorado) and stop checking my blog and my email every 15 seconds. I can’t tell you how much that helps my overall life/stress levels.

I guess my larger point is that if possible, a solution that offers:

1. Complete, profitable news coverage
2. Healthy lives for reporters

I read recently in Brain Rules that chronic stress takes a much bigger toll on humans that we’ve assumed. If we’re reshuffling the way the industry works, I want to try and preserve some ways of being healthy.

To Jason’s earlier comment re: romanticizing the beyond-40-hour week … I actually think it’s the 40-hour week that’s been overly romanticized. We now have the tools to integrate work into life, and there’s no reason to separate the two, if you choose to be in this business. I am “on” around the clock, but that also means that because my workplace comes with me if I have my bag with laptop/aircard/cameras, I can say “OK, I’m going out for a two-hour ferry ride at 2 pm” – and know that if something happens, with the help of both my partner and also the many reader-contributors who assist in crowdsourcing without even being asked, I can cover breaking news before that ferry gets back to the dock. I’m used to it because I was always an “exempt” employee in the “old media” world and wound up staying at work 11 or so hours all day, then (once the Interwebs arrived) being online via e-mail or whatever else at home.

I think gathering and delivering information is a business like few others, a vital public service. To be in it, you have to gut-check whether you want to be “on” all the time. If you don’t, maybe it’s not the right business. Before I chose to get out of the conventional media after more than a quarter-century, I was one of those slave-driver bosses who couldn’t understand why some reporters and photographers didn’t answer the phone or the page when called in to handle offhours breaking news. Why did they choose this business, I would wonder, if they didn’t want to serve when desperately needed?

But I’m glad to know that on the flip side, there are people like Monica continuing to try to effect change from within, to advocate that those who want to do more, not be restrained.

I’m not ready to stop reading newspapers in print or online. I think they do provide a lot of value that you can’t find by reading a blog. I like sitting outside with a newspaper on a nice sunny day reading and eating my lunch. I find that it is relaxing to disconnect from the computer to read something.

The other thing that I don’t think can be replaced is the fact that companies want newspapers to still cover them by writing an article about them. While it’s nice to get press from a local blogger, there’s still the credibility of being in a newspaper that can’t be replaced.

So yes, newspapers can’t be as fast as blogger in releasing the story, but does it really matter if news is published by a blogger at 11pm instead of a local newspaper later the next day?

It works for startups because you’re aiming for a huge payout (someone buys the company, IPO, etc), but it doesn’t strike me as a sustainable business model.

In terms of finding long term solutions for the news industry, I think we need to be looking for solutions that accommodate the 40-hour work week.

Mark – Did you read the post? There’s a BIG difference between “disdain” for newspapers, and helpful criticism. Toyota rules the automaking world largely because they listen to their employees suggestions and implement them.