This piece by the usually sharp David Remnick in the New Yorker is a mess. He's strongly against what is going on in Egypt and his arguments mirror a lot of what is being said in Western media (US and Europe). If I were to summarize why the Western Media is getting Egypt so wrong in one sentence I would say: They are starting from the point of what they expect democracies to look like (freedom of assembly, willingness to work with other parties, willingness to allow a President to serve his full term) and never bothering to analyze the situation ON THE GROUND as it was when Morsi was running the country into the ground at such a rate that it would not have been recoverable.
Egypt, this country of 80 million, can't afford to have all of its financial reserves plowed through in a mere few months by an incompetent President. It cannot afford to live without basic security. It cannot afford to intentionally court the worst elements of Islamic Fascism in a post-9/11 world, and it can't afford to lose Foreign direct investment. Yet under President Morsi all of this was happening at the speed of sound. Add to this his ridiculously anti-liberal/anti-constitutional behavior.
How "Democratic" Egypt is today, is kind of a moot point. It has to have basic security and financial solvency and ways for wealth generation BEFORE it can start that path toward the kind of democracy the West wants instantaneously. But the Western media has naively believed that Egypt should be at the point of a Hungry or Czech Republic in 1991. There were many reasons why certain portion of Eastern Europe stabilized so quickly after 1989 and those conditions don't exist in Egypt or Libya or Tunisia.
"Democracy" is just too vague of a word, and a media that really cares about Kim Kardashian and Kanye West is not going to have the discipline to report about complicated 21st Century issues in any kind of accurate way.