It's actually an AP article.  Just in case anyone doesn't believe Al-Jazeera is a reliable source.  
Oh, I don't question Al Jazeera. But if I had realized it was AP, I would preceded it with a disclainer. Do I put a smiley here or not?
What is interesting is that this story has gotten so little exposure, except at Al-Jazeera.  I saw it the day it went over the wires.  I think at the Web site of a small Pennsylvania paper. (Coal town, I assume.)  But it's since been taken down, and I haven't seen it anywhere else.  Rather odd, really.
Leanan,

I think more accurately it is: "Al-Jazeera is often a reliable source, but has a point of view that sometimes colors it's stories." The "massacre" at Jenin springs to mind.

This coal to oil story for the military is one to watch unfold over the next few years.

Yes, that's how I'd put it.  Al-Jazeera has a point of view.  But what media source doesn't?  CNN, Fox News, CBS, etc.  It's just not as visible to us, since it's a view we tend to share.  
Well put. But Al Jazeera is a mere shadow of its former self. They managed to neuter it somehow.
I am reading one of Jerry Mander's books (mentioned here, of course). He's the author of "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Televison. He relates some information he derived from the periodical Advertising Age:

75% of commercial network television time is purchased by the top 100 corporations in the U.S.  

To more fully understand the relevance of the statistic Mander adds: there are about 450,000 corporations in the country.

Mander's conclusion is that 100 corporations decide what appears on television and what does not.

Point us toward some conclusions.
Mander has quite a few thoughts on TV/MSM, and he is of the MSM as well, having run his own ad agency some years ago.

The most important conclusion is that producers must ultimately sell their programs to sponsors, that this is an explicit understanding which guides all program content and how the message is presented.

That Public Broadcasting is more that 50% funded by these same corporations which leads to the same programming constraints.

That the cost of an ad or ad campaign is so high that only these mega-corporations can pay and play. So they dominate the airwaves. It is essentially private ownership of the news.

That the public doesn't realize that free speech is not a right we enjoy equally since the most pervasive and powerful communications medium is controlled by so very few.

Mander gives a lot of statistics for viewers and hours viewed (5 hours per day is average!) but I posted not to go off on a rant about TV or the MSM but to help us understand that what we regard as the "news" is highly filtered to reflect the view of these very few, very large corporations.
In this regard we are not unlike Al Jazeera. And... we think of Al Jazeera as presenting highly selected and inflammatory news. I guess they have different sponsors <g>.

Understanding this sponsorship ratio is important. Quite literally, TSWHTF before PO gets honest representation at 6 P.M. And even then it will be filtered. So it truly is up to places like TOD to educate the public. As in New Orleans, help isn't on the way.    

A slight quibble: the media companies sell their audiences not their airtime/pages to the advertisers.
OK... they sell the audience.

Mander expressed himself differently but I am not sure it changes things. 100 corporations effectively control the message.

What struck me was this... several threads back Goose opened with a discourse on Pab-u-lum. This concerned the TV docu-drama about oil/you were warned. A number of posters here indicated that:

A) it was "step" in the right direction.
B) the media was cautious about public perception.
C) the public wasn't ready (too dumb) to understand.
D) the coverage missed making the simple point about        depletion in order to focus on various supply chain threats.

In other words, a selective, but benign, interpretation of the facts. But, and this is the issue... Suppose the TV folks weren't shoveling pab-u-lum, protecting us from self-panic? Did they not consider the Army Corps report that's making the rounds in blog-world, and issued in September 2005, not worth air-time?or not credible? Is the DOE's Hirsh report of Feb. 2005 not newsworthy... for a broadcast about oil scarcity?

Mander's point is that the MSM is must place the interests of its financial backers first.

My point is: peak oil'ers are wrong to believe the MSM is waiting for proof. Because if the Army knows the truth you can bet CNN does too. They have decided not to cover it.

That is a really big problem.