It has been no secret that the internet culture of sharing information and news content has been an increasingly large thorn in the side of large news corporations. However, media mogul, Rupert Murdoch, feels he has the answer and can reverse slumping revenue by charging for news content.

Strangely enough the only reason I heard about this story was because I was following the Guardian on Twitter. I then did a Google News search to find more about the story. I cannot think of a better way of illustrating the problem that large old media corporations are facing at this moment in time.

In a video interview on YouTube, the media mogul Murdoch discusses how 'everyone has been asleep' and how the content should never have been free in the first place. He then went on to accuse the likes of Google and Microsoft of stealing his stories. To me it seems like the last frenzied scrap by a dying autocratic media business model. He seems to place little or no value on the fact that such companies are directing potential customers to his news websites. They simply act as indexers or portals that lead users to the content and are not responsible for the content itself. It is centralised media corporations which have been asleep not everyone else.

If they were awake they would have realised that there is a fundamental shift taking place in the media landscape. It is now evolving to a more distributed decentralised two-way model of sharing news and information. It is not a case that one corporation can take charge and own the stories. The story is no longer static content at a point in time but a dynamically evolving entity of which we are all part of and can all have our voices heard. The value of this human connectedness and sharing goes way beyond profit margins of large old autocratic media corporations. However, a new business model will soon evolve out the ashes of the old media world. I doubt it will be what we expect. The internet is funny like that.

What is more is that people have already had a taste of this new evolution and will not give it up. At the end of the day corporations like Murdoch's provide a service for customers and in order to do this effectively they need listen to what customers want and value instead of being 'asleep'. It is no longer the case that they will have exclusivity to impose a rigid view of the world on its audiences. I am not sure those audiences are not even theirs any more - they are more mine and yours. This audience exclusivity is and will continue to be challenged by the new distributed online information sharing model.

By next year it may be difficult to find Murdoch news content in Google or Bing as he attempts to charge users for content. I am keen to see how this works out and if it is viable business model as all this may achieve is to further reduce his influence, audience and ultimately revenue.

We have seen it throughout history that empires rise and fall mostly due to inflexibilty and being unadaptable to changing environmental conditions.

I guess what I am trying to say can be summed up in one sentence or status update. Click here...

The high-profile relationship and recent divorce of Peter Andre and Katie Price (aka Jordan) has been the subject of much attention over the last few years. However, when all is said and done who wins in the end?

Since their 'chance' meeting on I'm A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here in 2004 we have had to endure the trials and tribulations from marriage to divorce.

I often wonder why people are so drawn to sensationalism like this as to me it seems like a mediocre plot from a soap opera. Whatever I think the Peter and Jordan story is big business for tabloids, gossip mags and other broadcast media (and of course PRs somewhere in the background). I always find it fascinating on how people get so obsessed about celebrity culture and want to know every gory detail. Everyone seems to have an opinion too as if they know all the facts inside-out and are some sort of Peter/Katie relationship expert.

It is sad that many that focus on this often neglect the real relationships around them. They also appear to have a very short memory. Peter Andre for instance was almost a complete nobody before that 2004 apart a couple of luck-lustre pop records where he took his shirt of quite a lot.

Then came a certain reality TV show and a relationship with Glamour model Jordan. He was suddenly thrust back into the limelight with relationship that then became a celebrity marriage in 2005. Jordan's love-life up until that point had been tumultuous to say the least. It included well-known footballers, and other celebrities. For the most part, however, Jordan has also been known for taking her top of quite a lot too.

The high profile relationship even lead to a TV show which featured the lifestyle of the glamourous couple with pseudo Posh and Becks style awe. Then was the divorce.... which of course lead to two separate TV shows in which both divorcees attempted to show to the world how much better they were doing than the other.

As most people know the recent divorce and pot-shot spats have become very messy. These are people who probably never heard the phrase 'Do not wash your dirty linen in public'. Add to this some children and it makes for a very volatile situation.

We have heard stories about relationship jealousy, and we have even been subject Jordan's past stories of rape. I wonder what their kids will think when they grow up and see what happened to them when they were young.

At the end of the day I ask who wins? It surely isn't the kids. Is it us who consume this information almost voyeuristically? Is it Peter Andre who is now trying to keep shirt on this time and launch a solo career as 'serious music artist'? Is it Katie Price who is desperately trying create a couple of other reasons to remember her by? Or is it the sensationalist media and other related businesses who fan the flames of an on-going drama for financial gain?