There is a very good immediate reason why the Egyptians have taken to the street again. This not only in Cairo but also in the governorates of Suez, Alexandria, Ismailia, Assiut and Qena.
Last week the military demanded that its supremacy over the civilian government shall be enshrined in a new constitution and made permanent. Thereby creating a military dictatorship with a democratic facade.
But reading the "western" mainstream media one will not learn about the protests' reason at all. The real, immediate reason of these protests does not exist in those reports. Instead the protesters are depicted as unreasonable delaying the upcoming sham elections.
As Al Arabiya wrote on Friday:
The rally was called to protest a document floated by the government which declares the military the guardian of “constitutional legitimacy,” suggesting the armed forces could have the final word on major policies even after a new president is elected. The document, which includes guiding principles for Egypt's new constitution, also introduces clauses that would shield it from civilian oversight.
Neither the Washington Post, nor the LA Times mention that attempt to keep the military supreme in their write ups about the protests. There is nothing about it in the Guardian, the Associated Press, the Independent and the Telegraph reporting. The only notable exception I find is a blog post by Tony Karon at the Time website.
The Wall Street Journal at least mentions the real issue, if only in a half-sentence down in the twentieth of thirty two paragraphs:
The military, meanwhile, has reneged on pledges of a speedy handover of power to civilian rule and tried to dictate a set of constitutional principles that would preserve sweeping powers for the military in any future government.
It is not only that the media do not write about the attempt of the military to stay in power forever, they even try make the military dictate look reasonable. The worst offender here is the New York Times which prominently sets out the false claim, without any factual support, that:
Liberals regarded [the military] as a hedge against Islamist power.
But further down to the end of the piece various liberal groups are quoted demanding, as they always did, exactly the opposite, the end of the military rule:
Some liberal groups, led by the former diplomat and presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei, called for the military council to give up power immediately to a civilian “government of national rescue.” Other liberals said they sought only the replacement of the current cabinet with a new civilian team with more power to make decisions independently of the council.
But the Times also gives the real reason why there is nothing in the "western" media explaining the protests against a permanent military dictatorship:
[T]he Obama administration considered [the military] a partner that it hoped would help secure American interests.
You see – it is not about the interests of the Egyptians at all. American interests are above the will of the Egyptian people therefore the military assault on their will and interests, to be free of permanent military rule, will not be mentioned at all.
The people in the "west" are not supposed to know what the revolution in Egypt really is about. The few who read The Arabist, The National, Al-Akhbar or Al Jazeera will learn what is happening in Egypt. Those who stick to the "western" mainstream media will not.