Why Journalism Tools Gather Dust

Slifty:<p>Here's the thing—everyone, in every enterprise-level business has deadlines. In news media, there is confusion over auteurship and who drives production. It's similar to music business and movies.<p>As a result, the businesses while have their entire existence dependent upon control of market are very reluctant to disruptively innovate.<p>I think, if there was a new media professional journalism school or movement, this would be less of an issue. The more I think about it, we're looking at similar to what Hollywood did before the rise of film school directors—personal control requires control of tools.<p>In media in general, presentation is a necessary part of identity. Branding is key. Therefore, the tools that create that are frightening to distribute. Good tools, as you know are build from the ground up over time, with both en eye towards future development providing foundation and current need and relentless opposition providing shape.<p>The Times is pretty progressive, but they're in the seat of Microsoft or Apple—the company can create a standard, but there's little pressure to embrace it.

This isn't something that only happens in your industry -- you'll see it in most sufficiently large enterprises. Effective software reuse, while certainly a noble goal, is very hard to accomplish.

the dust is spreading from the journals to their tools ;)

I can tell you now that I've been out of grad school for around a year or so:<p>Many companies are not product-focused. The goal of producing a good product using sensible techniques is only a small part of what happens. Companies are mainly social relations, specifically fiefdoms. At the top of the social hierarchy is an organization which can produce a "good enough" product to earn an income to keep the company afloat, while supporting the back-stabbing that goes on at the high levels.<p>Competing viciously for those dollars are hundreds of individuals. Their work is optimal when they bring the company, the commons, or the social fabric nearest to the brink of destruction. These people really don't care about sharing. If a company is not doing well, it doesn't make sense to them to utilize new techniques (such as sharing software) to make it better. They would rather loot the company and move on.<p>This is especially true of companies which have reached maturation separately, then been artificially bonded, such as the two newspapers you mention. From the outside, they may appear as two large pools of positively-charged molecules and you're wondering why the negatively-charged (connotations not implied here) molecules of software don't simply attract and stick. The reason is that the companies are not uniform entities... They're deeply complex structures with all kinds of spikes, moats, alarms, etc. to keep foreign entities, such as uncertainty and loss of control - away.<p>It doesn't matter if that friendly visitor coming to their door is a good Samaritan who wants to give out free cookies and teach them how to make cookies more efficiently or more deliciously. They already have reliable ways to make enough money and any newcomer is only going to disrupt how that flows. To make <i>more</i> money, they prefer social means, not technical ones. Why mess with - or even consider - software and other work when you can hire, fire and deceive people through antisocial practices of marketing, human resources, the stock market, etc.? Software is too wild - anyone (even teenagers for crissake) can write it and it's too powerful. So don't stake the business on software, stake it on social relations.<p>If your goal is to make a better product, find a better system of social relations. If you want to make your technological solution work, appeal to the antisocial tendencies in the hierarchy.