Egypt, it seems, is failing to follow a convenient storyline for the American journalists to follow.

When the American television media woke up and realized something was going on in Egypt (approximately two or three days after it all started, and long after Al Jazeera was covering it wall-to-wall, it bears mentioning), their first thought was to be the first network to get an anchor to Cairo. Brian Williams apparently won this race, much to the consternation (one assumes) of his competitors.

This silly race happens whenever a truly big story breaks elsewhere in the world where Americans might actually care what is happening, and where four-star hotels exist. Note the qualifications -- stories which happen which are virtually the same as what is going on now in Egypt are routinely ignored by the big network anchors, when they happen in some godforsaken place that not one in a thousand Americans could locate on the world map. Even when such stories do happen, it seems the big anchors are only willing to cover it when there's a convenient posh hotel nearby in which to barricade themselves should the going get rough (and then, one assumes, complain about the slow response of room service).

So Brian Williams appeared in Egypt a few days ago, eager to do two things immediately: present the story as if it had "just happened" (instead of building for almost a week before he got there); and, secondly, to fit the story into one of the stock, off-the-shelf journalistic storylines that are routinely used to explain such chaos to Americans. I don't mean to pick on Mr. Williams, as he was soon joined in this endeavor by the anchors from every other network. The print reporters, for the most part, went on doing what print reporters still do -- practicing actual journalism instead of preening for the cameras or bragging about how big your "team on the ground" is (even if they're all in the same hotel as you, for the most part).

The storyline the anchors had settled on, early in the week, was (quite obviously): "People power uprising convinces dictator to leave, country explodes in joy, American reporters return home." Perhaps that's a wee bit too snarky, but I think it makes a point.

There was a huge elephant in the middle of this tidy storyline, which was mostly either swept under the rug, or (at best) briefly mentioned in passing: we've been supporting the "bad guy" in the story for three decades. American support for tyrannous regimes around the world is never considered to be an appropriate thing for the media to point out (for example: our previous support of Saddam Hussein, which never seemed to come up in any media conversation during the war).

And unfortunately (for the media), Hosni Mubarak didn't seem to get his copy of the script of this storyline. With the crackdown that has happened the last two days, it is looking more and more like Mubarak is digging in his heels and hoping the whole thing will just blow over and eventually run out of steam. This heel-digging has taken the form of unleashing his thugs on the protesters, and seemingly targeting Western media types for arrest and/or beatings.

[I should mention that I haven't watched the evening news as I write this, and I hear that ABC's Christiane Amanpour actually got the scoop that everyone else has been hungering for in Egypt -- an interview with Hosni Mubarak. More power to her! That's more like it!]

This truly puts the American television media in a pickle. In the standard storyline, any regime who beats up (and kills) peaceful protesters is, quite obviously, the bad guys. Add to this the obvious conclusion that anyone who beats up (and arrests) the media themselves is also the very bad guys.

The longer this goes on, the more likely it is going to be that one or another of these television anchors is going to have to painfully report on how they had been the victim of some official brutality -- which came with a "Made In The United States" label on it. This is, for the most part, where it becomes obvious to the viewers that the people the networks hire to report the news are seriously, tragically out of their depth when they are confronted by real, live news in front of them, without the crutch of an entire support network of people to write it for them (and take the rough edges off).

The last time we've seen this sort of thing in America was during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It became glaringly, embarrassingly obvious (for days on end) that the top of the "journalism" profession (supposedly) were just laughably not up to the task of reporting news outside the normal comfort zone of someone who lives in New York City and hasn't a clue what life is like elsewhere (and at other income levels).

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the reporters are cowards for not venturing into streets that have become decidedly unsafe for Western reporters (the Egyptian state television reportedly aired an official government statement that "Israelis were disguising themselves as Western journalists" which is seriously troublesome on all kinds of levels). If I had the budget for world travel that they do and I were in Cairo as well, I would quite likely be holed up in my hotel room right now, too.

What I am saying is that the situation in Egypt is a very complex and complicated one, due entirely to our support (or "propping up" if you will) of what can most charitably be described as an "autocrat." Our decades-long support for the Egyptian government has been a foreign policy investment for us. It has bought us some very good things over the years, the most important of which is probably their relationship with Israel -- which is unique in that part of the world. Keeping the Suez Canal open under a stable government was another good thing our investment secured. Because of our very close military relationship with Egypt, they have probably the best, most modern, and most well-disciplined military in all of Africa. This close military relationship has also all but guaranteed during the current crisis that the military itself will not stage a coup and take over the reins of power. Egypt has been somewhat of an "anchor" of stability in the entire region, which includes all sorts of less-stable states (and certainly ones that are less-friendly to America).

However, this has all come at a price not just to American taxpayers, but to the citizens of Egypt themselves. Because, when speaking of governments in hotspots, stability is usually achieved through some flavor of strongmen. America, for thirty years and more, has purchased such stability at the expense of the freedom of the people of Egypt. And that is precisely the chicken which is now coming home to roost.

It's also the big problem with how the American media fits the events on the ground into a nice, tidy storyline. The protesters have been cast into the role of "good guys" by the media -- for excellent reasons -- and up until a few days ago, the story was playing out perfectly. The protesters were acceptable "good guys" because they: appeared to come from every strata of Egyptian society from workers to intelligentsia; were not violent; were not shouting overtly anti-American slogans; appeared to be secular and not Islamist; and had the goal of democracy.

Nothing has now changed, except that the "bad guys" are the now the ones instigating the violence. And it may be no coincidence that Western journalists are being terrorized into staying in their hotels, because tomorrow may be the big showdown on the streets.

If this turns into a bloodbath, then the American media storyline is going to be torn to shreds. If Mubarak cracks down in a major way and the revolution fails (as the street movement in Iran did not too long ago), then a new storyline is going to have to take its place. The problem with this is twofold. First, as mentioned, most of these "journalists" just aren't up to the task of shifting mental gears that fast. Look for some very unscripted moments in the next few days, as they desperately try to fit what is in front of their eyes with their preconceived notions.

The second problem with this is that the opinion of the world is going to be heavily against the Mubarak regime. Normally (as happened in Iran, for instance), the American media would try to outdo themselves in denouncing the offending government and leaders with the most purple prose they can think up. Unfortunately, in this case, the government and leader in question has been supported by the American government for decades. Our support is so deep that it absolutely cannot be fit into our normal Democratic/Republican lens of viewing things politically. Every president of both parties has been complicit in this policy. It's not an "Obama policy" or a "Bush policy" and would defy any attempts to paint it as such. Instead, it's an "American governmental policy."

In other words, we're all complicit in it. We all invested our tax dollars, through our leaders, in purchasing stability at the price of allowing the Egyptian people democracy or increased freedom. If -- and that's a very complicated "if" -- now that looks to have been a bad bargain, then we will be forced to look in the mirror and admit the fact that, to a certain degree or another, we're the "bad guys" in this developing storyline. And that's something the American television "journalists" are absolutely incapable of doing. They are so squeamish about ever being seen as "blaming America" for anything that they will perform rhetorical gymnastics to avoid even a hint of a suggestion that they are doing so.

Unfortunately, it is a fairly easy thing to figure out. Mubarak, of course, was supposed to follow the script the leader of Tunisia followed: hold strong for a few days, then flee in fear of your life with half the national treasury on board your plane. Mubarak has a different script, however. This script is going to lead to a very simple equation:

American-supported leader and his dragoons are the "bad guys." They are doing very bad things to the "good guys" who are people-power democracy-loving Egyptians. Also, to American journalists. If the "good guys" are crushed, and the "bad guys" stay in power, it is because we put them there in the first place and allowed them to survive for this long at American taxpayer expense.

Or, as Pogo Possum so eloquently once said:

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant