NYT, WaPo misreport Iraq Oil Law Benchmark

It's unforgivable that both The New York Times and the Washington Post persist in misreporting the key Iraq oil law benchmark.  These two leading print news sources, with the resources to have full-time reporters throughout Iraq and in Washington, continue to superficially describe the oil law benchmark as a law 'ensuring the equitable distribution of energy resources' (the New York Times today) (see pop-up chart, Iraqi Progress on Benchmarks) and "a law governing the distribution of oil revenue, an area of deep division among Iraqi factions"  (The Washington Post today)

These descriptions are misleading and give us no indication as to why . . .

Iraqi resistance to the oil law is so strong.  

In today's article, John Burns and David Stout of the NYT go on to say:

On the political front, none of the benchmarks that have been achieved include the high-profile legislation on which Congress asked to see progress. Debate has not yet begun in the Iraqi Parliament on the oil law or the revenue-sharing law, both of which are crucial to keeping Iraq united over the long term.

Sadly, it is true that both the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress have designated the oil law as a benchmark.  But it is not at all true that the oil law is crucial to keeping Iraq united - unless they mean 'united against the US and multinational oil companies,' as Ben Lando of UPI explains here

The NYT's only redeeming grace?  They published Antonia Juhasz' Op Ed on the Oil Law back in March, which explains that the law would give foreign oil companies control of 2/3rds of Iraq's known oil fields - and all of its yet-to-be-tapped oilfields.

Women Nobel Peace Prize laureates see the oil law for what it is - see this great diary from earlier today, which terms it the 'Oil Theft Law.'

Ascribing Iraqi resistance to the oil law as simply the inability of the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites to share - as if they were quarrelsome three-year-olds - is at best offensive and at worst racist.

Simply describing the law fully and honestly would give us so much insight into 1) why the Iraqi Parliament refuses to debate it - and 2) why the Bush administration and the US government is so insistent on having it.  

So why haven't the New York Times and the Washington Post described the oil law accurately yet?

•  Why? Conscious deception.

  Reporting accurately about the oil law would require a tacit admission that stealing Iraq's oil was the real reason for this war all along.

  by Feanor on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 12:05:03 PM PDT

•  Provincialism in US media, defending US oil.

  It is unfortunate indeed that major US media outlets, no less a pair of flagship papers than Waposh and New York Times have decided to take the route of journalistically compromised reporting/editorializing. Having said that, it makes sense. Their owners and corporate officers have stronger ties to oil corp executives than they do to integrity, corporate responsibility, and so forth. This behavior simply makes clear to those Americans in steadfast denial of reality, that corporations are transparently in cahoots, especially with corporate-sponsored presidential "shaministrations".

  by Enough Talk Lets Get Busy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 12:07:01 PM PDT

•  Stupid WaPo

  The revenue-sharing law, which is not the same as the oil law, hasn't even been approved by the cabinet yet.

  As for Parliament doing anything about the oil bill...

  Oh, that's right. What Parliament?

  by count on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 12:08:04 PM PDT

•  From Bando's piece

  Last week the Iraq Freedom Congress -- whose motto is "Working for a Democratic, Secular and Progressive Alternative to both the U.S. Occupation and Political Islam in Iraq" -- teamed up with the new Anti Oil Law Frontier to rally masses against the law.

  All the while a coalition in Iraq grows. It encompasses Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and secularists. Its goal is to keep Iraq together. But it also wants an end to the U.S. occupation.

  "They are also strongly opposed both to the terrorist forces of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and to the growing influence of Iran in Iraq," Robert Dreyfuss wrote of the opposition in The Nation.

  Despite sharing two key tenets of the war on terrorism, the United States isn't supporting the coalition.

  State Department Iraq Coordinator David Satterfield, answering questions in March about what has been self-termed the "National Salvation Government," vowed support for Maliki's government. "It is not helpful to talk about alternatives," he said.

  But alternatives may force themselves into the conversation, especially on the heels of the oil law.

  Wouldn't that just be the outcome this administration deserves - Iraqi's "stand up", "take control", etc. etc.; with a government that is not a US puppet.

  by Catte Nappe on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 12:12:33 PM PDT