They condone those same behaviours in their own culture but allow it in others.
I think it is a form of Orientalism, to be honest, and I have felt that for a long time. To me, there seems to be a really Victorian colonialist strain that runs under a lot of these people's attitudes: the notion that you cannot expect "such people" to be "civilised" because they are somehow "less than".
In fact the entire way Britain approaches multiculturalism within the borders of Britain itself is remarkably similar to the British colonial approach to non-white communities in countries within the Empire. There's also a fairly suspicious odour of "white man's burden" behind a lot of the attitudes, and it really puts my back up.
The worst place you find this sort of thing is in The Guardian. There's very little comprehension of self-determination, agency or valid social and political reasons behind situations in non-Western countries in that newspaper. There's constantly this narrative of needing to "save" people in non-western countries, sometimes even from themselves, a narrative that now often also extends to white "other" communities in Britain itself (such as the "working class").
It's all really rather offensive, but very few people seem to notice it. Syria is a perfect example of it all writ large.
I'd also argue the BBC reinforces a lot of this narrative through the way it represents minority communities in Britain and societies in non-Western countries. I known a Lebanese minister complained about the BBC's representation of Lebanon a few years ago.