Media converts and blinders

I'm listening to CNN this morning, listening to people like Wolf Blitzer refer casually to Hosni Mubarak as an "autocrat," talk about his 30-year dictatorship, and talk about how the Egyptian people can now look forward to "free and fair" elections. Do you suppose that once in the his entire tenure at CNN (prior to the last two weeks, anyway) that Wolf Blitzer had referred to Mubarak as an "autocrat," or said or even implied that the election in Egypt weren't "free and fair"?

At the same time, the sudden removal of blinders from the eyes of the corporate media hasn't changed their view of the Iranian revolution (32 years ago to the day) one bit. They simply refuse to acknowledge that Iran became a democratic country 32 years ago. Of course it's an imperfect one, with theocratic approval required for Presidential candidates, for example. Is that any less or more democratic than this country, where the approval of Wall Street bankers is required instead? If they had the slightest familiarity with recent Iranian history (and the willingness to acknowledge those facts to their viewers), they would know there are different parties in the elected Majlis, different factions, some of the President's choices being approved, some being disapproved, etc. All the trappings of a bourgeois democracy. There's only one reason the media won't acknowledge that, and it's the same reason that, until the last week or two, prevented them from telling their viewers the truth about Egypt. One country is in the crosshairs of imperialism, and the other was a trustworthy lackey of imperialism. It's really as simple as that.

Update: They're licking their chops over at CNN about the prospects of overturning the Iranian revolution and bringing it into the imperialist camp.