Perhaps one of the more unpleasant features of modern journalism is the way they have turned from news hounds - genuinely interested in finding news stories, investigating them and reporting them - into blood hounds - a pack of ferocious hacks sniffing out the scent of blood before chasing after it.
Sometimes it is real blood - as in war reporting which has gone from factual information on battle progress with the goriest bits withheld (other than, perhaps, a brief mention of casualties) to lingering over blood spattered images with graphic descriptions and emotional outpourings.
At other times it is metaphorical blood - as with the hunting down of Gordon Brown. On these occasions there is often no "scent" to search after - so the media instead create the story and then tear into the subject with unremitting ferocity. Sometimes this is based on third hand tittle tattle - such as the media trying to insist that they "knew" Gordon Brown was planning to sack Alistair Darling as Chancellor. They knew no such thing for certain - but they hate being made to look foolish, so they made out they did know.
So, having been deprived of their prey for now, they are back - baying for the blood of the PM to be spilled once more and jumping on the slightest thing to prove themselves justified. They will not be satisfied until they have caught their prey, ripped him to shreds and drank their fill of his blood.
This isn't political news reporting, it's blood lust.