BP CEO Tony Hayward's testimony before the House Energy and Commerce

British press turns on Hayward, with plenty of anti-Obama rage thrown in for good measure AP – BP CEO Tony Hayward testifies during a House Oversight and Investigations subcommittee hearing on the … Play Video Video:BP CEO: No evidence of reckless behavior WWL-TV, Channel 4 New Orleans Play Video Video:BP: 'We Care About The Small People' ABC News More from The Newsroom: Gulf spill could swing Obama's power play on energy policy Intelligence analysts say newspaper decline hurts foreign operations Murder of Hispanic man in Phoenix classed as a hate crime Gallup poll shows country divided on prospect of Obama's re-election Utah official gives execution go-ahead, then tweets Dems soften, backpedal NRA exemption ahead of campaign finance vote Alabama ad uses BP funds for containing spill damage to say beaches not suffering spill damage Florida candidate Rubio seeks to stave off foreclosure More » Fri Jun 18, 6:23 pm ET Many in the British press have slammed the U.S. government lately for demonizing BP, instead of simply holding the company accountable for the Gulf oil spill. But that sentiment has shifted noticeably since BP CEO Tony Hayward's testimony before the House Energy and Commerce committee Thursday. Hayward's inability (or unwillingness) to answer a number of direct questions about the decision-making that preceded the spill cost him many of his job responsibilities today — together with a good deal of his erstwhile cheering section in the British press. The Times (of London) didn't go easy on the oil executive, summing up its analysis of his performance in Washington with the headline: "From Mr. Bean to Mr. Has-been for BP's Tony Hayward." The Times' Giles Whittell wrote that Hayward "had a chance to save his career and the good name of his company by giving forthright, detailed answers to highly specific questions submitted in advance by two of the most astute and enlightened men in Congress." Instead, Hayward, he wrote, "seemed to have prepared by taking beta blockers." Whittell argued that Hayward stonewalled congressional interrogators, despite the executive's claims to the contrary. The Guardian clearly agreed with that assessment in its own piece on the hearing:  "BP oil spill: Tony Hayward stonewalls Congress." Although Hayward was "carefully coached by legal and media teams and was testifying under oath," the Guardian noted, he "failed to satisfy." Also, according to the Guardian, Hayward delivered his answers "in flat, impassive tones." In the Telegraph, PR branding specialist Mark Borkowski wrote that  "Hayward's communication skills didn't rival those of a tax inspector." "The new age demands a front-and-centre spokesman who can make the audience feel like he is listening and actually gives a damn," Borkowski wrote. "But Tony Hayward doesn't seem to have learned a great deal about being inclusive, about engaging with the public." "Accused of stonewalling, he stonewalled," Borkowski continued. "He couldn't, or wouldn't, answer most of the questions. In fact, he looked like a tired undertaker who was rather bored with having to look mournful." [PHOTOS: Haunting images of the oil disaster] Still, other British commentators had plenty of rancor left for the United States and its political leaders. Rupert Cornwell, a columnist for the Independent, added to the criticism that others in the British press have leveled against the Obama administration and Congress — that they're unfairly piling on BP even as the company tries to clean up its mess. Cornwell wrote that "yesterday's grilling of Mr. Hayward ... is a 21st-century version of the medieval stocks, public disgrace for the public villain of the moment." While Cornwell harkened back to medieval times to describe Hayward's treatment on Capitol Hill, the Daily Mail went back even further for a historical comparison. The British paper reported that Hayward was "subjected to a grilling so savage yesterday it was more like ancient Rome than Capitol Hill." "Wave after wave of criticism flew the way of the hapless boss and his company," the Daily Mail continued, "confirming them both as Public Enemy No. 1 in the U.S." The Economist, more highbrow than the typical Fleet Street tabloid, came out swinging at the Obama administration in the issue on newsstands Friday. However, the Economist's ire isn't motivated by jingoism or knee-jerk America-bashing — it's far too genteel for such tabloid sport. Instead, backed by its faith in free markets and neo-liberal trade policies, the Economist  came out in support not just of a British company but of business itself, which it judged to be unfairly maligned in the spill fiasco.  "America's justifiable fury with BP is degenerating into a broader attack on business," the Economist's editors wrote in today's lead editorial. The Economist expressed concern that business leaders who are "already gloomy, depressed by the economy and nervous of their president's attitude towards them" will likely not be encouraged by the treatment of BP. Because Obama's now pushing "firms into doing his bidding" — the magazine's characterizaion of efforts to hold BP responsible for an environmental catastrophe of its own making — the Economist draws parallels between the president and Russia's strong-armed former president and current prime minister. Hence the editors' new nickname: "Vladimir Obama." So while Tony Hayward is now a tarnished British hero in the Tony Blair vein, national morale may well rebound with the prospect of a good old colonial trade war — or Cold War, as the case may be. — Michael Calderone is the media writer for Yahoo! News.