US reporting on Gordon Brown's visit to Washington - to the extent that there has been any - seems to have taken its lead from the British media's treatment of the event.
Mr Brown's visit has not received wall-to-wall coverage in the US
Indeed, much of the US coverage has been concerned with how the British media are reporting the story, rather than the significance for Americans of Mr Brown's trip.
So Dana Milbank, the Washington Post's sketch-writer, wrote a column about the British press corps' decision to characterise the White House's treatment of the prime minister as a "snub".
He tended to agree with his UK colleagues, describing Mr Obama's treatment of Mr Brown as "a surprisingly cool reception for an ally".
Josh Gerstein, writing for the US politics website Politico, also opted to write about how the British press was covering the visit.
"Before the two men sat down Tuesday at the White House, the British press corps had already reached its conclusion on President Obama's sentiments towards British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: He's just not that into you."
Time magazine's Michael Scherer dubbed the British media's "obsession" with how the UK is viewed by America, and how Mr Brown is viewed by Mr Obama, "kind of pathetic".
"But then it must be hard begging favor from a former colony, so I won't begrudge the Brits," he added.
On the substance of the two men's meeting, the New York Times described how Mr Brown used it "to raise the prospect of 'a global New Deal' that would set common principles for regulating banks".
And it noted as significant the fact that "that phrase [global New Deal] was not repeated in public by Mr Obama".
As for Mr Brown's speech to Congress, NBC's Domenico Montanaro noted that the prime minister "seemed to relish in the hand-shaking and adulatory applause".
But he warned Mr Brown not to take the adulation to heart: the applause was, he said, "a familiar sight from this chamber for Americans, who are accustomed to seeing similar displays during State of the Unions".
On the substance of the speech, he drew attention to Mr Brown's decision to "put Obama in the class of 20th Century icons - Franklin D Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, who have held idol status as aspirational emblems of their political parties."
The New York Times's Brian Knowlton also noted the "warm welcome" that Mr Brown received. And he added that attendance had been good: "The Capitol interns who are sometimes summoned to fill empty seats on such occasions were relatively few in number."
Ezra Klein, for the American Prospect, described the speech as "a loving paean to American values".
But for Mr Klein, it was also "a bit of a confusing speech given that Britain's stimulus plan is fairly paltry: 0.9% of GDP, as compared to 5.5% of GDP for [America's] effort... Brown's speech implies [he believes countries should be stimulating more], but his country's policies aren't quite so aligned."
Perhaps the most notable feature of the US media's reaction to Mr Brown's speech was its very scarcity - few bloggers or newspaper commentators had anything to say about the address.
And the lack of instant commentary speaks volumes about the amount of importance Americans placed in Mr Brown's visit.
This is not necessarily a reflection on Mr Brown himself.
Americans are simply more concerned with domestic affairs at the moment, and the visit of a foreign leader, however close his relationship with President Obama, simply does not register on the country's political radar.