Selective Outrage: How The U.K. Press Reacted To Obama’s Numerous Anti-British Gaffes

The British press is just as sycophantic about Obama as the Us media is. Why doesn't this surprise me? It seems Brits are very easily manipulated by their MSM.

www.mediaite.com...

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s “gaffe” in Great Britain on Thursday, in which he called into question London’s security preparations ahead of the Olympics, has been greeted with a mix of scorn and glee in both the British and American press. Hours after the Telegraph reported that a rogue Romney advisor said that his presidency would usher in a return to America’s traditional respect for the United States’ “Anglo-Saxon heritage,” a phrase which has been willfully misconstrued to mean the Romney camp’s support for racially discriminatory and white supremacist policies, Romney stepped in it yet again. Now the British press is having some fun with Romney’s slap at London’s Olympic preparedness, but the Forth Estate in England has been far from neutral towards President Barack Obama’s numerous anti-British gaffes. Indeed, they have been rather forgiving. In light of this most recent misstep by Romney, it’s worth a look back at how the British press treated some of the President’s famous misstatements.

Yet, when Obama makes gaffes, the Brits do just as the US MSM does and spins positively for "their guy".

In 2009, when President Obama presented Queen Elizabeth II with a gift of an iPod populated with a variety of pictures and songs tailored to the Queen’s liking, the Guardian gushed. “Clearly a lot of thought went into this gift, as President Obama made no secret of his excitement at the prospect of meeting the Queen,” wrote The Guardian’s Rosie Swash. The President’s gift to then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown was a series of DVDs. Most of the British press was “appalled,” but the Guardian noted in the headline “it’s the thought that counts.”

When Michelle Obama met Queen Elizabeth for the first time, she broke with accepted decorum by wrapping a friendly arm around her back. The Telegraph’s headline? “Renewing a very Touching Relationship.”

The U.K. Daily Mail even opted to rewrite the history of that occasion, suggesting that it was the Queen who opted to put her arm around the First Lady first and thus inviting Mrs. Obama to reciprocate:

From the Daily Fail:

She is not renowned for public displays of affection. Which made the Queen’s decision to put a friendly arm around Michelle Obama’s waist at a Buckingham Palace G20 reception – prompting the U.S. President’s wife to return the gesture – so utterly astonishing.

It continues.....

When President Barack Obama committed a slight faux pas by toasting the Queen during a state dinner, he spoke over the playing of God Save the Queen amid embarrassing silence. The Daily Mail hel pfully noted that the band “accidently” started playing the national anthem over Obama’s speech. While that may be true, the news organization had no such interest in covering for his predecessor when “the blundering Bush” made “another gaffe by winking at the Queen.”

The Guardian’s columnist Victoria Coren gushed sympathy for the relatable moment of fallible humanity the President stumbled into:

From The Guardian:

Now, it couldn’t matter less. If Obama had stumbled over the table and emptied a soup tureen into the Queen’s lap, it wouldn’t actually have mattered (except to the advertisers on YouTube), never mind speaking a few accidental words over a tune. Nobody was hurt, nothing was damaged, the whole thing was an utter irrelevance. And yet it’s impossible to watch the footage without crawling around and whispering: “Make it STOP!”

More examples and conclusion:

When President Obama referred to the Falkland Islands as the Maldives (a chain of islands quite literally located on the other side of the globe), the Telegraph said the gaffe was an “uncharacteristic error” which was “more akin more akin to those of his predecessor George W Bush.”

The President was attempting to use the Spanish word for the island, the Malvinas, which in itself is a snub to the British – a reality that was noted by The Daily Mail’s conservative columnist Toby Harden. But you’ll be hard pressed to find any mention of the incident outside of the occasionally irate British conservative opinion maker.

But what Obama’s predecessor was quite unlikely to do would be to side with the Great Britain’s adversary in the still-simmering dispute over those South American islands. The United States did not back Britain’s claim to sovereignty over those islands when their possession was in dispute, and ultimately sided with a group of nations backing Argentina’s claim to possession – a claim settled by force in the 1982 Falklands War. The Telegraph‘s conservative columnist Nile Gardiner was quite upset by the measure, but the British press was largely silent on the move.

While Romney’s inartful criticism of a fiercely proud people on their soil ahead of an event synonymous with national pride was a bad move, the outrage over Romney’s gaffe is quite selective since the same measure of indignation is never reserved for President Obama.

It's pretty undeniable. The British press is just as horrible and manipulative when it comes to lying and spin for Barack Obama.

damn, UK, our bad.....this one got out from a defective batch of POTUS´. Please return him boxed and disassembled and we will take it from there.

If you would like a Reagan era model we have on standby until we correct the mix up please inform our customer help desk in the White house.


The Ipod is on us.

reply to post by PvtHudson

reply to post by PvtHudson


That's what I don't get. What Mr. Romney said I don't honestly see what the problem was? He simply stated what had already been brought up in the British press earlier. And he clearly made comments that any normal person would ask.
Now if obama were to of said the same thing, you know the press would be gushing at how concerned obama was for the British people.
But again, the obama media is in control everywhere.

reply to post by PvtHudson


I am a fan of neither, and I am extremely suspicious of exactly why our PM is even holding court with Romney - this is not protocol.

Cameron declined a meeting with the French potential leader stating that it was policy not to endorse a person running for office in another nation in such a way. Yet, he's meeting very publicly with Romney?

However, regardless of my feelings towards both Romney and Obama (I really don't like either, I think Romney is a republican hypocrite and Obama is a puppet who has done more to disappoint American voters than any president before him) I cannot equate Obama giving the Queen an iPod with Romney making public statements about the Olympics.

On a political level it is clear to see who has been the most inappropriate and it has nothing to do with double standards. Obama has made some humorous gaffs, Romney potentially insulted the country. That is the difference here, from a political and media pandering point of view.

The papers are assuming that people give a damn (most of us actually don't), but they correctly see that insulting an entire nation is a political disaster compared to Obama or the First Lady doing something that most Brits would find smirk-inducing.

I don't read the tabloid trash, but I can tell you with some authority that the people are not impressed with any American politician, left or right. We simply do not give a damn about who you elect, what their opinions are and whether they are embarrassing or not.

Also, most of the people of the UK are fed up with the Olympics already, and we fully accept that G4S have been a disaster from the start.

This is not news to us, Romney probably had the majority of the UK public agreeing with him. The media thought we give a crap about it. We don't. But on the scale of errors, insulting a nation (if we cared about what he's attacking) would be far more embarrassing than giving her Maj an iPod.

Its because Obama brought hope and change, whereas Romney is an elitest, rammed down our throat, stuffed suit.

Obama is the suave black guy that slid into office based on nothing but smoke and mirrors, the cool guy that is one of us, a community activist, a guy that goes against the status quo, you know. (At least that is how his campaign in 2008 was run.) They give him a pass because of all of that.

Romney is hated from the get-go. He is billionairre, pretty-boy, job cutting, cut-throat elitest, with a plastic look, and an arrogant defense when he is cornered or questioned. He stands for everything the majority of us hate.

It is not going to change. The suave black guy is going to get a free pass a lot of the time, and the billionairre is going to get egg on his face at every chance.

This is precisely why Romney had no chance winning in November. Nothing he says will be received positively, whereas no matter how screwed up Obama is, people will still interpret it in a positive light. Its not about platforms, or politics, its just about popularity and stereotypes.

reply to post by detachedindividual


UK Prime Ministers and Opposition leaders have often met US Presidential candidates over the years, so i am surprised you think this isn't normal. This occurs both in the UK and in the US (ie Cameron visiting just after becoming Conservative leader).

As for the French candidate, they maybe our neighbours but as international partners, they are nothing like as important to us as the USA - hence no meeting.


To the OP,

All media is biased. We experimented with it while the US was still getting used to independence. By the time you had a Civil War, media bias had been almost perfected over here. Just look at copies of old UK newspapers! We even had satirical magazines by the early 1800's.

The thing is though, apart from a few naysayers, people are generally happy about the Olympics now they have actually arrived. Therefore he was obviously going to be on a loser saying anything negative about them. Surely his PR team should have realised that? As everything is stage managed these days, i do not blame him so much as his team. The ironic thing is he had done quite well over here the previous day talking about restoring the "anglo-saxon" relationship (despite the undertones in that particular message).

My fave was when Romney said about "Watching the Olympics out of the backside of 10 Downing Street."

I won't comment on what backsides contain....though i'm sure someone will.

CX.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Agreed. In general, people love Obama. And are suspicious of Romney. It's just the way it is. Obama has that "charming" thing. And Romney is so out of touch, it shows in every facial expression, everything he says and does. He's jumped the track. Obama is so "normal" compared to Romney. The facts really don't matter here, it's the subconscious perceptions that decide who we "like".

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Agreed. In general, people love Obama. And are suspicious of Romney. It's just the way it is. Obama has that "charming" thing.

And Romney is so out of touch, it shows in every facial expression, everything he says and does. He's jumped the track. Obama is so "normal" compared to Romney. The facts really don't matter here, it's the subconscious perceptions that decide who we "like".

Gee, you think that has ANYTHING to do with the 24 hour press coverage? Obama is treated like a god king and Romney is treated like the grand dragon of the KKK.

reply to post by PvtHudson

Originally posted by PvtHudson
Obama is treated like a god king and Romney is treated like the grand dragon of the KKK.

Your point?

Actually, I think you are exaggerating a bit. But Obama is treated much more kindly by the press than Romney is... But there's a reason. And it's not JUST the media's opinion of them. Romney's a true creep. We have NO idea what he's going to do next or what he'd do in office. I kinda hope we find out.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Romney's a true creep. We have NO idea what he's going to do next or what he'd do in office. I kinda hope we find out.

That's your subjective opinion. Many think Obama is a creep. Just because the media is dominated by liberal Democrats who carry water for all the democrat party, doesn't make their opinions reality.

reply to post by getreadyalready


He's no where near a billionaire...$200million.......much much less than most of the Hollywood elite that throw money at Obama and bought his way into office.

Just sick of all the mistruths...carry on.

Oh you poor Conservatives...always the victim

Wait...don't Conservatives always complain about people playing the "victim" mentality???


So you really think Michelle Obama putting her arm around the Queen and Obama not stopping his speech when the band started playing while he was talking is the same thing as Romney directly bashing London saying they aren't prepared and have done a poor job preparing for the Olympics????


Do you need a tissue??? Are your feelings hurt???


Get over it...you are trying really really hard to be a victim.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

He's no where near a billionaire...$200million.......much much less than most of the Hollywood elite that throw money at Obama and bought his way into office.

Just sick of all the mistruths...carry on.

Thanks. I was just tossing out a number, I only knew he was "rich" LOL.

200 million is still pretty damn rich compared to my network of about negative $70k.

ETA:
Of course, we don't know the real number, because he won't disclose it, and we're sure there are hidden off shore accounts, so perhaps in reality he is closer to a billion?

reply to post by PvtHudson


Speaking as a Brit, the stuff with the Queen was endearing, most of us don't care about the Falklands but Romney insulted the nation with his idiotic, misinformed comments.

Selective or simply reflecting the mood of the nation? One and the same thing. If there is one thing the media knows - its their customer base.

Republican is a DIRTY word on this side of the Atlantic.

Originally posted by citizenx1
reply to post by PvtHudson

 

Speaking as a Brit, the stuff with the Queen was endearing, most of us don't care about the Falklands but Romney insulted the nation with his idiotic, misinformed comments.

When Bush did the same sort of stuff you guys hailed it as proof of his idiocy. When YOUR guy does it, it's "endearing".

Romney didn't insult the nation either. if anything, he raised questions about whoever is in charge of security. Your exaggeration is more evidence of MSM manipulation.

EDIT: I'm not even a Romney supporter.

You Brits used to rage about Gitmo..Whatever happened to that? it seemed to stop as soon as Obama took office. In fact, there is a laundry list of things Brits cared about under Bush, that they stopped caring about the second their media stopped harping on it.

reply to post by PvtHudson


Pretty much, like i say, we can't stand Republican politics in this country. We find it illinformed, anti-intellectual nonsense.

Therefore, its proponents are automatically treated with disdain.

Err, i'm not outraged and quite capable of forming my own views, thank you.

Someone asked for an answer, i've provided it. Question of take it or leave at chap, its up to you.

OK, so this is what Romney said:

“The stories about the private security firm not having enough people…that obviously is not something which is encouraging,” he said.

boston.cbslocal.com...

Because this is what the Security company said previously:

as G4S chief executive admitted two weeks ago that he could not guarantee the firm’s promised number of trained and screen security guards.

boston.cbslocal.com...

It does seem to be blatant media bias. Blowing this small comment way out of context in order to bash Romney.


So how is that insulting London or bad?

It shows a real concern to me and apprantley it is a concern echoed by London because they called in:

Almost 7,000 British military troops were called in last minute to provide additional security,

reply to post by citizenx1


That's why our ancestors left Europe and fought for our freedom from you.