As a former journalist, it pains me to see how the industry has developed over the last few years.

Day rates for freelances haven’t risen in line with inflation; daily and Sunday staff are being asked to work across all titles, resulting in the loss of some jobs; and the internet has meant that gaining a share of voice has become dispersed as blogs and social networking takes its toll.

But the beauty of the internet is that it allows everyone access to the news, entertainment and information they require.

Want to find something out about the latest diet, watch your team’s latest performance or learn more about the history of penicillin? The internet is the place to go.

And Google, which undoubtedly leads the way both as a search engine and perhaps for browsers, email and suchlike, is the place most of us go to find what we want to find out about.

But Rupert Murdoch is frustrated by this.

I read The Sun, The Times and Sunday Times online and don’t pay for them (though I do also buy them and use their sites more for breaking news) – and Mr Murdoch doesn’t like that.

In some respects, I understand why, because the lack of income from readers has had a direct effect on the fate of journalists.

But what Mr Murdoch should be doing is finding new ways of maximising his website income through advertising and banners.

Advertisers should be paying a premium for their ads to be seen by visitors to News Corp sites because those sites have content which is of great interest. But it is not always unique content.

Mr Murdoch is planning to erect ‘pay walls’ which will charge for online content on the Sun, the Times, the New York Post and the Australian, amongst others.

This will involve removing News Corp titles from Google searches and possibly running them through Bing, the Microsoft search engine, where readers will be directed to pay if they wish to read further.

Will readers start making the move profitable for Mr Murdoch and his empire? I’m not so sure.

The fact is, there will always be ways of reading online content and if News Corp continually stays ahead of the game (possibly investing any online subscription profits in firewalls to stop potential hackers), people will just go elsewhere.

A number of media organisations, including the BBC and The Guardian and Observer, have already declared that they will not charge for online content and that in turn could give them an advertising revenue advantage (in the case of the Guardian/Observer) by driving more readers to their sites.

The beauty of the internet is its accessibility and when information is available so freely, will News Corp and Mr Murdoch really be able to change the face of the worldwide web?

Watch this space – and I promise I won’t charge!
 
 
I’ve discussed my views here in the past about the importance of the sports ‘Crown Jewels’ and the list announced on Friday makes interesting reading.

The advisory Review Panel, led by former BBC journalist and Football Association chief David Davies, was always going to be contentious and it was impossible to please all of the people all of the time.

Even though I don’t tend to watch them myself, the omission of the Winter Olympic Games, the Epsom Derby and Rugby League Challenge Cup Final has caused more than a little surprise.

The fact that England's home cricket Test matches, the Six Nations, Commonwealth Games, World Athletics Championships, Cricket World Cup - final, semi-finals and matches involving home nations and Ryder Cup are now all to be up for grabs raises a number of questions.

It suggests that any cricket other than the Ashes is not important enough to be available to the masses – and the same goes for athletics given that the two biggest events for British audiences after the Olympic Games are the World Athletics Championships and Commonwealth Games.

It’s also interesting to note that the UEFA Champions League, which needs commercial funding to sustain its lucrative benefits, has no requirement even for terrestrial highlights under the current recommendations.

The fact is that sport is incredibly important – it provides entertainment, promotes patriotic and community fervour.

But is at grassroots level where sport provides the most positive impact.

When spectators, young people in particular, watch sports events, it captures their imagination and encourages them to get involved themselves.

That, in turn, promotes healthy living, a sense of respect for opponents and collaboration with team-mates, dedication and determination, focus and discipline.

In those respects, the transferrable benefits of sport have such a huge potential influence on society.

Participating in sport can cut the strain on the health service, reduce crime levels in young people, and provide experiences which benefit people in the workplace. It’s a no-brainer.

Yet it is getting more and more expensive to watch sport live, putting added pressure on television to provide viewing opportunities for those who cannot watch events in person.

Paying for sports facilities, coaches and equipment requires massive funding – and as many of the sports federations have said today in reaction to the proposed revised list, preventing certain events from signing lucrative subscription or pay-TV deals could prove disastrous for grassroots sport.

But it’s interesting to note that despite the benefits of Sky’s investment in sport through its coverage deals, only around six million homes currently subscribe and so can watch the events, which is less than a quarter of the total audience.

And how much of the Sky money actually goes all the way to the grassroots?

If you take the Premier League, for instance, since its inception, clubs have invested heavily in foreign players and big wages, rather than developing and nurturing lower league players whose transfer fees provided a knock-on all the way down the football tiers.

Watching sport is inspiring.

If federations have to work harder to secure additional sponsorship, the fact that the potential audiences will be so much larger than on subscription channels should be compelling enough an argument to make up the shortfall.
 
 
This Sunday is a hugely important day in the British calendar.

In the week when so many British servicemen have lost their lives in Afghanistan, Remembrance Sunday takes on even greater significance, if that were possible.

The antics of an idiotic student, filmed urinating on a war memorial when drunk recently, underlines how easy it is for younger generations to forget what suffering and sacrifice has ensured the sovereignty of this country over the centuries.

And so it would seem appropriate - and not before time - that the Premier League football clubs show their support and understanding by embroidering poppies on their shirts for this weekend's matches.

Arsenal, for instance, are to auction their shirts off to raise money for the British Legion charity and I expect other clubs have other worthwhile money-raising plans as well.

But the fact that two of the country's biggest clubs - Manchester United and Liverpool - have refused to adorn their shirts with poppies despite overwhelming public outcry is a public relations disaster.

How quick and simple it would have been to join the other 18 clubs in the top flight to show their respect for those who have fought for their country.

It is especially ironic given that both have suffered from significant non-military disasters - the Munich air crash in United's case and Hillsbrough in Liverpool's - which have provoked so much sympathy from the wider sports community.

Any change of strategy would now be seen as a climbdown, but still be preferable to digging in their heels about a cause which is so worthy.

Other columnists and bloggers have spoken about 'Poppy Fascism' which seems ironic since the last great war ensured far-right parties did not spread their tyranny and destruction, at a huge cost of life.

Both clubs will no doubt do their bit to raise money for the British Legion anyway, but what a missed opportunity!

As Warren Buffet said, reputations take years to gain and moments to lose and how much sympathy goodwill or sympathy will the clubs now deserve after such a small minded act which does nothing for their public relations?
 
 
Most people who own professional sports clubs are in it for one of three reasons.

They might be diehard fans who want to give something back to their communities.

Or they are investors who think the club they buy into will be worth a lot more in future with a bit of personal glory along the way, perhaps.

For some, clubs are a plaything when they get bored of sitting in the bay just off Monaco, racing powerboats or attending glitzy parties.

A lot of these owners will come and go, their popularity or fortunes waning as their ambitions wither away, leaving their supporters wondering what went wrong.

Newcastle United have not enjoyed success for decades, despite huge investment and some of the most fanatical fans in the country.

Their support and the focus on the club within the city underlines how important success is in the North East and despite challenging for the Premier League title and reaching a few cup finals, silverware has been hard to come by.

I’m not sure what Sports Direct multi-millionaire Mike Ashley was thinking when he bought the club for £134m in May 2007 but overnight he went from a recluse who no one really knew to someone who wanted to wear the club’s shirt and sit with the fans.

Hiring Kevin Keegan might have been predictable, but it was a way of showing the fans that he knew what they wanted and the first step in possibly challenging for honours again.

By the end of last season, Keegan had gone and has subsequently won a constructive dismissal claim against the club, while Ashley has failed to sell the club on two occasions and seen its value deteriorate after relegation last May.

Even for someone with his money, the investment required and the hero-to-zero notoriety which comes with on-field struggles must have been something of a shock.

So Wednesday’s announcement that the club ground is to be renamed sportsdirect.com@St James' Park Stadium must rub further salt in the wounds of fans who have suffered greatly under Ashley’s reign.

As I said, owners come and go, but for supporters, developments at their club are front of mind almost all the time.

Footballers are getting more money while sponsorship deals are also on the increase yet the cost of attending games is increasing and almost prohibitive for a family of four.

This move looks like a way of boosting the owners’ coffers until someone is found who will buy the club when, possibly, they will have returned to the Premier League, instead of showing some empathy with fans who have witnessed the chaos going on at the club over recent months.

Perhaps renaming the stadium the Sir Bobby Robson St James’ Park would have been a better short-term solution until a big sponsor is found.

The late Newcastle manager was a legend on Tyneside and the move would have perhaps reminded fans that the club’s owners did have an ounce of understanding and sensitivity for them after all.