Daily Archives: May 24, 2006

“In a moment, everything you ever wanted to know about Charlie Gibson becoming the ABC anchor, and maybe more.
But first I want to talk about the Clintons’ marriage.”

Quips Mr. Sheri Annis cheekily, right at the start of his column in today’s Pravda
Needless to say it’s his own marriage that we all should be concerned about rather than piffle like Gibson or

“the Clintons’ marriage.
Or, more precisely, whether the Clintons’ marriage should be covered, or at least whether it should be covered in a zillion-word front-page piece in the New York Times. Complete with statistics on how many weekends they’ve spent together (51 of the last 73).”

TheNYT article, as Mr. Sheri’s semi-equivalent at Slate Jack Schafer observes

“states that the “state of their marriage” is “Topic A” for “many prominent Democrats” without ever saying how or why it ranks so high. And who are the many prominent Democrats? If they are many, why aren’t they represented in the piece? Or do Healy and his editors count “one, two, three, many” when enumerating their subjects?”

Disinterested in such details Mr. Sheri gets down to the nitty-gritty

“Of course the Clintons’ marriage is news–and the story makes clear that they’ve both thought about how to package it for the public. There is even a joint statement from their two press secretaries, like some SALT-talks communique.”

Most impressive. But Mr. Sheri isn’t fooled

“If Hillary hadn’t been married to Bill, would she now be a United States senator, let alone the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination?”

Maybe. Maybe not.. She’s so ambitious – as everyone keeps telling us. It’s wonder why she married Bill at all, no?

“If Bill hadn’t fooled around with Monica, leading Hillary to blame the vast right-wing conspiracy only to discover that the accusations were right, would she have sold millions of copies of her book?”

You mean the vast right-wing conspiracy was all about a blow-job after all? Not about billing records, White House staff firings, drug-running throught the Mena airport, land deals, Vince Foster’s suicide, et. al.?

“Will at least some Americans worry about the role that Bill would play in a second Clinton presidency?
Will all Americans, or at least those with a pulse, continue to gossip about their marriage if she runs?”

Well while you’re taking the nation’s pulse you also might stop by the supermarket and read The Globe which has declared that the marriage of George W. Bush and his acellerator-happy wife Laura is “over.” And being far more widely read that the NYT it’s fair to say this story hasn’t been given an ounce of the attention it deserves by Mr. Sheri and his ilk.

But then neither has the story of Mr. Sheri’s marriage save on the ‘net:

“Like every other political reporter in the country, Kurtz has been paying close attention to the California recall race, with plenty of attention on Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign.
In fact, in his daily “Media Notes” column, Kurtz mentioned Schwarzenegger five times in five columns last week. Kurtz’s work commented on the Schwarzenegger campaign’s response to the groping allegations, the alleged praise for Hitler, the endorsements from California newspapers, etc.
All the while, Kurtz was offering analysis on the quality of the Schwarzenegger message. What Kurtz failed to mention is that his wife, Sheri Annis, has been Schwarzenegger’s press secretary.
In other words, Kurtz is hardly a disinterested media critic, objectively considering a candidate’s media strategy and communications efforts. Kurtz is critiquing the very message that his wife has been shaping, making this a fairly obvious conflict of interest. Either the Post should have asked a different writer to cover these issues, or, at a minimum, Kurtz should have informed readers of his personal ties to the campaign

Oh my goodness. “Conflctof Interest”? Wait — it gets better.

“What are we to think about Kurtz’s consistent support of Schwarzenegger’s campaign? Was it just a coincidence that Kurtz was supportive of the campaign’s media strategy in dealing with recent controversies?
Last week, for example, Kurtz was dismissive about the sexual misconduct story, parroting Schwarzenegger’s talking points, saying that “voters will probably see this as a late hit, six days before the recall,” and concluding that the allegations are an old story “discounted by much of the electorate.” Kurtz even mocked the story, saying, “[A] Hollywood star grabbing at actresses and crew members — shocking!”
Actually, for a lot of us, the fact that a gubernatorial candidate has repeatedly made unwanted sexual advances on women, groping and grabbing women’s bodies without their consent, is shocking and hardly the kind of behavior that should be mocked by professional journalists.”

Sheri Annis is GOP public relations strategist not merely supportive of George W. Bush.but a central part of the “brains trust” in the recall election that won Arnold Schwartzenegger the Governorship of the state of Californai. She also worked on a voter proposition for that state that would force immigrant children to speak English in school. She, and her company Fourth Estate Strategies also devised a campaign to stop living wage laws. She appears regularly on Chris Matthews Hardballas a conservative pundit and writes for the National Review..

So what was her reaction when Arnold groped Sheri? Did she enjoy it? Did she encourage it? How often did he do it? Surely she told Mr. Sheri about it? Why hasn’t he written a column? Or two? Or more?

Surely this journalistic “oversight” will be dealt with in the very near future. After all, it’s news.