At the end of the video showing the execution of Steven Sotloff, the ISIS militant threatens to take the life of a British hostage next. But who is that hostage?
But across the Atlantic, coverage of the hostage's abduction has looked and sounded more like this:
BBC: "It was disclosed that a British hostage is also under threat. The BBC is not naming him at the request of his family in Scotland."
It seems to be part of a media blackout on the story, which some analysts suggest was requested by the British government to help safeguard the hostage.
A columnist writing for The Daily Beast argues such media blackouts don't actually help hostages, though. Instead he argues the British and American governments "should start by fighting the information war with ISIS. ... Openness would take away some of the control the jihadists have to administer shock as they go on killing."
Meanwhile, British Prime Minister David Cameron convened a special cabinet briefing to plan the government's response to the abduction and came away with this:
DAVID CAMERON VIA SKY NEWS: "This country will never give in to terrorism."
So far, Cameron has tried to drive the British response to ISIS' threat on a domestic level, pushing Parliament to give police the right to confiscate the passports of suspected militants.
But the question of using military force has also been raised — something Cameron attempted last year when he tried, and failed, to get Parliament to authorize airstrikes in Syria. This time the story could be different, but some lawmakers still aren't on board. (Video via CNN)
SIR MENZIES CAMPBELL VIA CHANNEL 4: "I am cautious because I do not believe that in every circumstance military action will provide the kind of solution one wants. ... We are very, very heavily involved without being involved in offensive action."
The British government is expected to take a parliamentary vote before authorizing any airstrikes against ISIS targets.