gets massive publicity for the Syrian rebels and boosts their case enormously thanks to the exposure - meaning, of course, that hacks will now become prime targets for rebels wishing to blame governments or regimes.

This, of course, has not dawned upon the dear old media... it's a good story; that's all that matters, as the scorpion said to the frog.

I thought that as soon as I saw the headlines. Another two journalists are now seriously injured and trapped in the region, at the mercy of rebels.

I don't agree, I think in this case the bad publicity is in fact bad pubilicity and is bringing attention to the anti goverment side.

I do agree that the media are whores and will do anything for a story but in this case they are supporting the good guys and are doing the right thing by covering the story.

Ah FC - technically - at the mercy of the REGIME (that's the way the rebels will display it). And BB - you may be right; everything may well be as it seems. Just like the noble rebels against Gaddafi in Libya were supported by the world media.

We all prefer to champion the underdog (it's a better story).

I was surprised the Tottenham riots weren't championed by the media - the tiny band of freedom fighters fighting the establishment. Mind you - they are veering towards the St Paul's rebels. "Those bloody bankers" - a great story. "Huge bonuses" - good headlines.

Croydon Hero pleads guilty at Old Bailey! "I was complaining about the standards of vile capitalists - those sofas were SOOOO flammable!".

All it needs is a good PR guy. For God's sake - the Times will be making someone who sets fire to himself their Man of the Year next (oops - they already did).

Meejah. Don't you just love it?

"Dear Max Clifford; we want to kill some Yanks. Can you come up with some decent spin please?".
"Certainly. Get them to burn some Bibles. Always works. Oops, sorry, I mean Korans (always get these religions confused)."

it may not have been the first case but when the Yanks targetted the Al Jazerah building in Iraq they sent out a message that the media was fair game.

we will never know who killed Colvin. I'm amazed journalists like Robert Fisk or Jon Pilger have survived.

Call me suspicious but i think the only reason there were Korans in the rubbish was because they were placed there deliberately.

Back to Syria - I have no objections to people complaining about the regime - whether it be "not enough food" or "bad healthcare" or "oppression of freedom of expression" or "corruption".
Indeed I think many feel the UK has as many problems as anywhere else, if different.
But I don't like violent intervention. And then the regime gets violent against the rebels (as the UK did with the rioters). And then outside powers get involved.

ITK approves of such involvement. Would he approve of a similar intervention by outside powers to back rebels in the UK? And if not, why not? Unless the obvious answer is... because he agrees with the regime?