Undoubtedly, you will have heard by now that the News of the World is no more and the first of its many heads has rolled. However, the hounds at the door of Murdoch's crumbling print empire show no signs of abating.
A boycott campaign has risen up on social media sites in the hopes of sending a "clear message" to Rupert Murdoch about the unsavoury practices of the News of the World and its brutally, intrusive investigative journalism but to me, the nature of that message is unclear.
How long will this boycott last; till the scandal dies down, till the Sun tumbles in a financial black hole left by people who probably didn't read it in the first place, till they forget and accidentally pick up a HarperCollins published book or wander into a pub when a football match is on?
Admittedly, cancelling a Sky subscription may make a dent in Murdoch's revenues but it's likely to be a mere drop in the pond of profit he's still likely to make this year.
Boycotts in large numbers can make an impact. After the Sun's coverage of the Hillsborough disaster in 1988 which accused Liverpool fans of being drunk, disorderly and hampering the rescue efforts it still struggles to sell in the Merseyside area but that was a large group in a concentrated area allied against one title; not a small and geographically distance group of strangers who felt personal rather than political outrage. What can they possibly hope to achieve? Do they really think Murdoch will be swayed by one tiny Facebook group when he doesn't even feel compelled to appear in front of the independent inquiry on the matter?
The social media age has in some ways allowed people to have more say in how society's leaders run the country and their businesses, as seen by countless commentators breathlessly extolling the virtues of social media in bringing about the Arab Spring.
Yet in the countries where democracy is seen as right rather than a dream it has created a political culture where people believe that retweeting passive aggressive statements on Twitter and joining boycott groups on Facebook is taking an active part in the political process.
Over the past fifty years membership of political parties has crashed and voting numbers are still falling despite the political establishment's best efforts to get people, particularly young people, interested in politics.
The problem is, I think, people were never not interested; they've just started to settle for an 'armchair protest' approach rather than actively standing up for what they believe in.
It's true that we are starting to see proper political participation again with all the protests we've seen across the country over the past 14 months however it took the government threatening their way of life or their future for them to do anything.
When it does not affect them so many people are ready to simply tweet or Facebook their outrage to their small band of friends or followers or at most write an angry letter to other newspaper.
Political historians of the past century have noted a general drift from political party to interest in single issue campaigns as the public feels less ties to a certain party because of their class or their upbringing but how far do they really get involved?
Yet, how many people can say they've been on a march, how many have ever written to their local MPs about issues they really care about, how many have taken an interest the progress of the petition they signed last week?
Instead of keeping our political opinions to 140 characters or less maybe it's the British public stand up for what they claim to believe in. Actions speak louder than words.