I have no sympathy for Mubarak, but the way the mass-media has been covering this has been totally one-sided. There are a few interesting technical sides of the story (Internet getting shut down), but overall the whole thing smacks too much of propaganda. So I agree that the general story has no place on HN.
Does every story have an "other side" like you seem to expect? What if Mubarak really is just another kleptocratic authoritarian now showing possible signs of mental instability with his "I'll leave/I'm staying" schtick? Is it the media's job to make that seem sympathetic?
In fact, I'll go further with this: One of the big things I hate about (American) mainstream media is that it tries too hard to give "both sides" of a one-sided issue. A case in point is the whole thing about whether vaccines cause autism: Informed people knew from pretty much day one that they don't, and that the whole supposed 'debate' was completely manufactured by a combination of cynical lawsuit-mongers and abysmally ignorant celebrities. Yet you'd have never known that from how respectfully those trolls were treated and how seriously the 'debates' were handled in the mainstream media.
That's actually a somewhat common critique of the media; I'm bringing it up now because what you said happened to clang on it to some extent. I'm not trying to attack you with it.
As years go by, we discover that even Nicholas II had his good sides, and his regime was certainly better than its replacement. And the last czar was much more of an autocrat than Mubarak ever hoped for.
In any case, what I'm taking issue with is that the media show huge bias by immediately jumping on any rumors of Mubarak's resignation (self fulfilling prophecies, anyone?), that all anti-government protesters are portrayed as noble heroes (even though a significant proportion are certainly West-hating Islamic radicals), that all of Mubarak's supporters are paid thugs etc. This is a huge political morass and something that doesn't belong on HN.
