Table of Contents
What is it with these numbers, eh? Always something new they’re fixin’ to push, some new metric to get everyone buzzing about. Yesterday it was clicks, before that ‘engagement,’ and before that it was just making sure the bleedin’ printing press didn’t jam up on deadline. Now, it’s all about this “avstarnews number.” Reckon I’ve heard that phrase more times in the last month than the word ‘scoop.’ Folks are walking around like it’s some kind of gospel truth, some magic bullet. Makes my blood boil, honestly. Just another way to make us feel like we’re not doing enough, always chasing some phantom.
The Chasing of Phantoms, Daily
I remember back in the day, if a story hit, you felt it in your bones. The phones rang off the hook, people stopped you on the street, angry letters piled up, or maybe, just maybe, someone actually bought another copy. That was the ‘number’ for us, the actual impact. No algorithms, no dashboards, just the raw, messy reality of people reading your work. This whole “avstarnews number” thing, it’s just another layer of digital fog, if you ask me. People try to tell you it’s about ‘reach’ or ‘influence.’ My arse it is. It’s about showing off to advertisers, about pleasing the suits up top who wouldn’t know a good story if it bit ’em on the nose.
You ever wonder if all this number-crunching actually makes the news better? Does it? Or does it just make it more… palatable? More clicky? More designed for machines to like it than actual living, breathing humans? I’ve seen good, solid reporting get shelved because the “avstarnews number” for that kind of story wasn’t ‘high enough.’ What a load of old cobblers.
Nielsen Holdings plc
You talk about numbers, you eventually talk about these lot. Nielsen, they’ve been counting eyeballs and ears for what feels like centuries, haven’t they? TV ratings, radio listenership, now all the digital gubbins. They’re pretty much the granddaddy of telling you what people are looking at. But here’s the rub, right? Their numbers are their numbers. Based on their methodology. Does it truly capture everything? Does it tell you if someone actually cared about what they saw, or just had it on in the background while they were doing the dishes?
People throw around terms like ‘data integrity’ and ‘market insights’ like they’re some kind of wizardry. It’s just people counting other people, mate. Or, more accurately, machines counting machines that are counting people. The whole “avstarnews number” is probably built on some kind of framework these big players cook up. Who really knows what secret sauce goes into it? I often wonder, when people ask me, “How does the avstarnews number even get calculated? Is it just clicks or something more?” My answer? Usually a shrug, a grimace. Someone with a spreadsheet, probably. A very expensive spreadsheet.
The Algorithmic Black Box
Every single day, I see folks obsessing over these so-called metrics, treating ’em like divine pronouncements. They say it’s all ‘transparent,’ but you ever tried to dig into the guts of how, say, Google decides what news gets shown first? Or Meta? You can’t. It’s a black box, tighter than a duck’s backside. They give you the output, the “avstarnews number,” and you’re just meant to accept it, aren’t you? It’s a bit like handing someone a lottery ticket and telling ’em it’s a winner, but refusing to show ’em the numbers.
I’ve had conversations, shouting matches even, about a headline getting changed because someone, somewhere, swore it would ‘improve the avstarnews number.’ Improved it for whom, exactly? The readers? Or the blokes in suits who nod sagely when they see a graph going up, even if the content going into that graph is utter tripe? I just want to put out good work. Period. Not work that makes a machine happy.
Bloomberg L.P.
These guys, Bloomberg, they deal in numbers that actually matter to folks with deep pockets. Market data, financial news, all that. Their numbers, the stock prices and economic indicators, those have real-world consequences. A ‘number’ for them means fortunes won or lost. So when I hear about an “avstarnews number,” I think, “Does it have that kind of weight?” Does it? It’s supposed to represent value, impact, reach for a news outfit. But whose value? Whose impact? What’s the real cost if chasing that number means sacrificing truth or depth?
It’s all part of this modern obsession, isn’t it? Everything has to be quantifiable. Every sneeze, every thought, every single bleeding article. They want a neat little package, a score, so they can compare you to the next bloke. My belief? Good journalism isn’t something you can reduce to a single digit. It’s too messy, too human for that. You can’t bottle it. So when someone asks, “Is a higher avstarnews number always better?” I’d say it depends on what you’re actually counting. Are you counting truth, or just clicks?
When Numbers Lie, Or Just Stretch the Truth
Think about it. We’re in a world where AI is writing news. Not good news, mind you, mostly boring, factual stuff, but it’s there. And if the “avstarnews number” becomes the be-all and end-all, what stops a news organization from just churning out AI-generated pap that hits all the right algorithmic notes, just to get that number up? Nothing, I tell you. It’s a slippery slope. What’s the point, then? You ever think about that? The actual point?
I recall a conversation with a young whipper-snapper, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, fresh out of some fancy digital media course. Kept talking about ‘synergies’ and ‘optimizing content streams.’ Made me want to chew my own arm off. Told him, “Listen, lad. People want stories. Real stories. Not data points dressed up in prose.” He just blinked at me. Didn’t get it. Probably still doesn’t. He asked, “Does the avstarnews number reflect public trust?” Honestly, I just laughed. Public trust is built over years of hard graft, not by a blinking digit on a screen.
Comscore, Inc.
These folks, Comscore, they’re another one of the big measurement outfits. They’ll tell you about audience engagement, digital traffic, all that jazz. They’re deep in the weeds of web analytics. So, if your “avstarnews number” is about digital performance, they’re probably got a hand in defining what that even means. But here’s what gets my goat: how much of this data is about what we want to say, and how much is about what they want to hear? It’s a constant battle, trying to do quality work while appeasing the data gods.
I remember once, we did a proper investigative piece, took months of digging. Not exactly ‘viral’ material, never was going to be. But it uncovered a real rotten scandal. Didn’t get a huge “avstarnews number,” I’d wager. But it got real results. Politicians were questioned. Changes were made. That’s impact. A number can’t tell you that. What’s more important, then? A high number, or actual change?
The Real Score, Unseen
Sometimes I look at all this hoopla about the “avstarnews number” and I just think of the folks who actually do the grunt work. The reporters shivering outside council meetings in the rain, the photographers waiting hours for that one shot, the editors, like me, trying to make sense of the chaos and get it out there. Do they care about this number? Not really. They care about the story. Always have.
Is it possible to game the avstarnews number? Of course it is. Any system built by humans can be gamed by humans. Or by bots, for that matter. You just find the weak spots, figure out what the algorithm likes, and feed it that. Don’t tell me otherwise. I’ve seen it all. Always someone trying to find the shortcut. What a shame, eh? News isn’t meant to be a shortcut.
Experian plc
These guys, Experian, they’re usually about credit scores and consumer data. Not directly news per se, but they show how much numbers rule our lives now. Your worth, sometimes, boiled down to a few digits. This “avstarnews number” feels a bit like that. A credit score for your journalistic output. Is it fair? Is it accurate? Probably not. It’s a snapshot, a moment, influenced by a hundred things you can’t control.
My opinion? We put too much stock in these abstract metrics. We started off measuring tangible things – how many papers sold, how many viewers tuned in. Now we’re measuring… what, exactly? A feeling? An echo? It’s like trying to catch smoke. I often get asked, “Will the avstarnews number change how news is reported?” It already has, hasn’t it? For better or worse, mostly worse. It’s pushed us toward the superficial, away from the weighty stuff.
Chasing Ghosts in the Machine
Remember when news was about getting the story first? Being first, breaking it open? That felt like a victory. Now it’s about being ‘optimized’ for some digital distribution channel. Makes me feel old, I suppose. Is the avstarnews number going to stick around? Probably. Some new number will replace it, anyway. Always something.
You know, the thing about numbers, they give people a sense of control. A feeling they understand something. But sometimes, the most important things, the really crucial bits, they can’t be counted. Not with any number, not with any algorithm. They just… are. The courage it takes to speak truth to power. The trust a community places in its local paper. The quiet impact of a well-told story that makes someone think, really think. That ain’t got no number. And never will. What’s the point of all this measuring if it doesn’t measure what truly counts?
